BOOK III

THE HISTORY OF ASSYRIA

CHAPTER I

THE BEGINNINGS OF ASSYRIA

OF the period when the first settlers of a Semitic
race entered
Assyria nothing is known, but all things point to their coming from
Babylonia. The oldest traditions of the Semitic peoples connect the
Assyrians with the Babylonians, and the earliest titles of their rulers
point to dependence upon the previous civilization in the south. We are
unable to trace the political and social history of Assyria to any
point at all approaching the vast antiquity of Babylonia.

There is evidence, as already seen, that the city of
Nineveh was in
existence at least three thousand years before Christ, but of the men
who built it and reigned in it we know absolutely nothing. As in
Babylonia, we are confronted in the beginnings of Assyrian history only
by a name here and there of some early ruler of whose deeds we have
only the simplest note, if indeed we have any at all. The first
Assyrian ruler bears the title of Ishakku, which seems to mean
priest-prince, and implies subjection to some other ruler elsewhere.
These early rulers must have been subject princes of the kings in
Babylonia, for there is no evidence yet found to connect them with any
other state, while their traditional connections are all with the
southern kingdom. The names of several of these Ishakke have
come down to us, but are unhappily not able to arrange them in any
definite order of chronological sequence. Apparently the first of them
are Ishme-Dagan and his son, Shamshi-Adad I. The latter of these built
a great temple in the city of Asshur and dedicated it to the gods Anu
and Adad. We have no certain indications of the date of these rulers,
but we are probably safe in the assertion that they ruled about
1830-1810 B. C.1
After a
short interval, probably, there follow two other priest-princes, whose
names are Igur-Kapkapu and Shamshi-Adad II.2
The names of two other Ishakke have also come down to us,
Khallu and Irishum,3
but
their date is unknown.

These six names are all that remain of the history
of the early
government of Assyria. At this period, about 1800 B. C., the chief city
was Asshur, then and long after the residence of the ruler. There is no
hint in these early texts of hegemony over other cities; though Nineveh
certainly, and other cities probably, were then in existence. The
population was probably small, consisting, in its ruling classes at
least, of colonists from Babylonia. There may have been earlier
settlers among whom the Semitic invaders found home, as there were in
Babylonia when the Semites first appeared in that land, but of them we
have no certainty. It is an indistinct picture which we get of these
times in the temperate northern land, but it is a picture of civilized
men who dwelt in cities, and built temples in which to worship their
gods, and who carried on some form of government in a tributary or
other subject relation to the great culture land which they had left in
the south. The later Assyrian people had but faint memory of these
times, and to them, as to us, they were ancient days.

At about 1700 B. C. the priest-prince ruling in
Asshur was
Bel-Kapkapu, according to a statement of Adad-Nirari III (811-783), a
later king of Assyria, while Esarhaddon would have us believe that he
was himself a direct descendant of a king, Bel-bani, and, though we may
put no faith in such genealogical researches, perhaps greater credence
may be given the other historical statement with which the name of
Bel-bani is followed.4
According to the historiographers of Esarhaddon, Bel-bani was the first
Ishakku of Asshur who adopted the title of king, having
received the office of king from the god Marduk himself. If there be
any truth at all in these statements, we must see in Bel-bani the first
king of Assyria, but the fact is empty of real meaning, whether true or
not, for we know nothing of the king's personality or works.

After these names of shadowy personalities there
comes a great
silent period of above two hundred years, in which we hear no sound of
any movements in Assyria, nor do we know the name of even one ruler.5 At the very end of
this period
(about 1490 B. C.) all western Asia was shaken to its foundations by an
Egyptian invasion. Thutmosis III,6
freed at last from the restraint of Hatshepsowet, his peace-loving
sister or aunt, had swept along the Mediterranean coast to Carmel and
over the spur of the hill to the plain of Esdraelon. At Megiddo the
allies met him in defense of Syria, if not of all western Asia, and
were crushingly defeated. The echo of that victory resounded even in
Assyria, and whoever7
it
was who then reigned by the Tigris made haste to send a "great stone of
real lapis lazuli"8
and
other less valuable gifts in token of his submission. It was well for
Samaria that Thutmosis was satisfied with those gifts, and led no army
across the Euphrates.

Soon after the invasion of Thutmosis III we again
learn the name of
an Assyrian king, for about 1450 B. C. we find the Kassite king of
Babylonia, Karaindash, making a treaty with the king of Assyria, whose
name is given as Asshur-bel-nisheshu.9
This latter is the first king of Assyria of whom we may consider that
we know anything. He claims a certain territory in Mesopotamia, and
makes good his claim to it. Assyria now is clearly acknowledged by the
king of Babylonia as an independent kingdom. The independence of the
northern kingdom was probably achieved during the two hundred years
preceding, through the weakness of the kingdom of Babylonia. It must be
remembered that it was in this very period that Babylonia was torn with
internal dissension and fell an easy prey to the Kassites. While the
Kassites were busy with the establishment of their rule over the newly
conquered land the time was auspicious for the firm settling of a new
kingdom in Assyria.

Shortly after, though perhaps not immediately, his
successor,
Puzur-Asshur, came to the throne (about 1420 B. C.). Like his
predecessor, he also had dealings with the Babylonians concerning the
boundary line; and beyond this fact noted by the Assyrian synchronistic
tablet,10 we
know nothing
of him.

After Puzur-Asshur came Asshur-nadin-akhe (it is
Asshur who giveth
brothers), a contemporary of Amenophis IV,11
the heretic king of Egypt, with whom he had correspondence.12 A later king
also records the
fact that he built, or rather perhaps restored, a palace in Asshur. His
reign was an era of peace, as these two facts apparently would prove,
namely, the correspondence with the far distant land of Egypt,
indicating a high state of civilization, and the restoration of a
palace, and not, as heretofore, a temple.

He was succeeded by his son, Asshur-uballit (Asshur
has given life),
about 1370 B. C., and in his reign there were stirring times. His
daughter, Muballitat-Sheru'a, was married to Kara-Khardash, the king of
Babylon. Herein we meet for the first time, in real form, the Assyrian
efforts to gain control in Babylonia. The son of this union,
Kadashman-Kharbe I, was soon upon the throne. The Babylonian people
must have suspected intrigue, for they rebelled and killed the king.
This was a good excuse for Assyrian intervention, for the rebels had
killed the grandson of the king of Assyria. The Assyrians invaded the
land, and the Babylonians were conquered, and another grandson of
Asshur-uballit was placed upon the throne, under the title of Kurigalzu
II13 This
act made
Babylonia at least partially subject to Assyria, but many long years
must elapse before any such subjection would be really acknowledged by
the proud Babylonians. They were already subject to a foreign people,
the Kassites, who had indeed become Babylonians in all respects, but it
would be a greater humiliation to acknowledge their own colonists, the
Assyrians, a bloodthirsty people, as their masters. Asshur-uballit also
made a campaign against the Shubari, a people dwelling east of the
Tigris and apparently near the borders of Elam.14

Friendly relations between Assyria and Egypt were
continued during
his reign, and a letter15
of his to the Egyptian king Amenophis IV has been preserved, in which
occur the following sentences "To Napkhuriya16.
. . king of Egypt my brother Asshur-uballit, king of Assyria, the great
king thy brother. To thyself, to thy house, and to thy country let
there be peace. When I saw thy ambassadors I rejoiced greatly . . . A
chariot . . . and two white horses, . . . a chariot without harness,
and one seal of blue stone I have sent thee as a present. These are
presents for the great king." The letter then proceeds to ask very
frankly for specific and very large gifts in return, and tells very
clearly of the present state of the road between Egypt and Assyria.

In the reign of Asshur-uballit Assyria made a
distinct advance in
power and dignity, and this development continued during the reign of
Asshur-uballit's son and successor, Bel-nirari (Bel-is-my-help)-about
1380 B. C. Of him two facts have come down to us, the mutual relations
of which seem to be as follows: Kurigalzu II had been seated on the
Babylonian throne by the Assyrians and therefore owed them much
gratitude, but to assure the stability of his throne he must needs take
the Babylonian rather than the Assyrian side of controversies and
difficulties between the peoples. The grandson of Bel-nirari boasts
concerning him that he conquered the Kassites17
and in creased the territory of Assyria. By this he must mean not the
Kassite rulers of Babylonia, but rather the people from whom they had
come-that is, the inhabitants of the neighboring Elamite foothills.
This conquest simply carried a little further the acquisition of
territory toward the east and south which had been begun by
Asshur-uballit's conquest of Shubari. But these Assyrian conquests led
to Babylonian jealousy and then to a conflict between Kurigalzu II and
Bel-nirari, in which the latter was victorious, and this, in turn,
brought about a rearrangement of the boundary line by which the two
kings divided between them the disputed territory,18 though it does not appear
which was the gainer.

Again the succession to the throne passed from
father to son, and
Pudi-ilu (about 1360 B. C.) reigned in Asshur. He has left us only
brief inscriptions,19
in
which he boasts of building at the temple of Shamash, probably that at
the capital city. From his son we learn that he was a warrior of no
mean achievements, though our geographical knowledge is not sufficient
to enable us to follow his movements closely. He is represented as
overrunning the lands Turuki and Nigimkhi, and conquering the princes
of the land of Gutium.20
Beside these conquests to the north of the city of Asshur he also
extended his borders toward the southwest by the conquest of the nomad
people the Sutu. From reign to reign we see the little kingdom of
Asshur grow. These conquests were probably not much more than raids,
nor is it likely that at so early a period a serious effort was made by
the Assyrians to govern the territory overrun.21
It was preparatory work; the peoples round about Asshur were gradually
being brought to know something of its growing power. They would soon
come to regard it as a mistress and consolidation would be easy. It was
in similar fashion that the empire of Babylonia had grown to its
position of influence.

Pudi-ilu was succeeded by his son, Adad-nirari I
(about 1345 B. C.),
who has left us two records, the one a bronze sword inscribed with his
name and titles,22
the
other a considerable inscription,23
carefully dated by the eponym name, the oldest dated Assyrian
inscription yet found. The latter is largely devoted to an account of
the enlargement of the temple of Asshur in the capital, his wars being
but slightly mentioned. In the enumeration of the lands conquered by
him the countries already overrun by his predecessors are
repeated-Shubari, the Kassite country, and Guti, to which lie adds the
land of the Lulumi. The fact that these lands needed so soon to be
conquered again shows that the first conquest was little more than a
raid. But this time a distinct advance was made; Adad-nirari does more
than conquer. He expressly states that he rebuilt cities in this
conquered territory24
which had been devastated by the previous conquests. Here is evidence
of rule rather than of ruin, and in this incident we may find the real
beginnings of the great empire of Assyria. Again there were
difficulties with Babylonia, and Adad-nirari fought with Kurigalzu II
and with his successor, Nazi-Maruttash (about 1345 B. C.), both of whom
he conquered, according to Assyrian accounts,25
though the Babylonian Chronicle would give the victory to the
Babylonian king, in the first case at least. In the inscription of the
bronze sword Adad-nirari calls himself king of Kishshati, a title which
is found earlier in an inscription of Asshur-uballit.26 He does not call himself king
of Asshur at all, though this title is given by him to his father and
grandfather. Apparently he seems to claim for himself a greater dignity
than that of ruler merely over Asshur, else would he certainly have
called himself king of Asshur, as did his predecessors. But his own
description gives us no means of determining the location or the bounds
of the territory which he had conquered or over which he claimed rule.
When his reign closed he left Assyria and its dependencies far stronger
than when he took the government in his own hands.

His son, Shalmaneser I, was his worthy successor.
From his own
historiographers very little has come down to us-only two broken
tablets,27
from which it
is difficult to make out any connected story, but the fame of his great
deeds called forth more than one mention from later kings,28 and these will
enable us to
reconstruct the main portion of his achievements. The general direction
of his conquests was toward the northwest. This would seem to imply
that the policy of his father had been successful, and that the
territory toward the northeast and the southeast was peacefully subject
to Assyria. He pushed rather into the great territory of the valley
between the Tigris and the Euphrates, and therein established colonies
as a bulwark of defense against the nomadic populations of the farther
north. Still farther westward the land of Musri was also subjected.
This land lay north of Syria, close to Mount Amanus, and hence very
near to the great Mediterranean Sea. To reach it Shalmaneser must cross
the Euphrates--the first time that Assyrian power had crossed the great
river. Subsequent events show that the more westerly parts of the land
which he conquered were not really added to the Assyrian state. As in
the case of Shubari, so also in this, other invasions would be
necessary. But this at least had been gained, the rapidly growing
kingdom was firmly established as far as the Balikh, and perhaps even
to the Euphrates beyond.

Small wonder is it that a conqueror of such prowess
and an organizer
of such ability should deem it necessary to build a new Capital worthy
of so great a kingdom. The city of Asshur was old, and its location was
far south, too near the old Babylonian border. A kingdom that was
growing northward and westward needed a capital more nearly central in
location. Shalmaneser I determined to erect his new capital at Calah,29 and so pitched
upon a site
which remained the capital of his country for centuries, and later
became the southern portion of Nineveh itself. In peace as in war a man
of foresight and skill, like his father, he left Assyria the greater
for his living and ruling.

In the reign of his son and successor, Tukulti-Ninib
(about 1290 B.
C.), the irresistible progress of the Assyrian arms reached a glorious
climax. There had once more arisen trouble between the two states of
Assyria and Babylonia. Perhaps it bras the old and vexed boundary
question, which Would not down; perhaps the never-forgotten restless
ambition of the Assyrians to rule at Babylon. Whatever the cause or
excuse Tukulti-Ninib invaded Babylonia with force sufficient to
overwhelm its defenders and the imperial capital was taken. After an
unexampled career of power and of civilization Babylon had fallen and
the Assyrian plunderer was among her ruins. Tukulti-Ninib laid low a
part of the city wall, even then massive, killed some of the defenders,
and plundered the temple, carrying away into Assyria the image of the
great god Marduk. This was no mere raid, but a genuine conquest of the
city, which was now governed from Calah. Assyrian officers were
stationed both in the north and in the south of the country.
Tukulti-Ninib adopts the title of king of Sumer and Accad in addition
to his former titles, king of Kishshati and king of Asshur. In his
person were now united the latest Assyrian title and one of the most
ancient titles in the world. The old and coveted land of Sumer and
Accad, the conquest of which by Hammurabi had been the very making of
his empire, was now ruled from the far north. A curious evidence of the
rule of Tukulti-Ninib in Babylon itself was found by Sennacherib,
probably during the second attack upon the city (689 B. C.).
Tukulti-Ninib had sent to Babylon a seal inscribed with his name, and
this was taken to Assyria.30
For seven years only was this rule over Babylonia maintained. The
Babylonians rebelled, drove out the Assyrian conqueror, and set up once
more a Babylonian, Adad-shum-usur (about 1268-1239 B. C.), as king over
them. When Tukulti-Ninib returned to Assyria after his unsuccessful
effort to maintain his authority in the south he found even his own
people in rebellion under the leadership of his son. In the civil war
that followed he lost his life, and the most brilliant reign in
Assyrian history up to that time was closed.

Up to this point the progress of the Assyrians had
been steady and
rapid. The few Semitic colonists from Babylonia had so completely
overwhelmed the original inhabitants of their land that the latter made
no impression on Assyrian life or history, and in this alone they had
achieved more than the Babylonians, after a much longer history and
with greater opportunities. We have seen how the Babylonians were
influenced by the Sumerian civilization and by the Sumerian people.
Afterward they were first conquered by the Kassites and then so
completely amalgamated with them that they ceased to be a pure Semitic
race. Thus the influences of Semitism could not be perpetuated and
disseminated by the Babylonians, while, on the other hand, the
Assyrians suffered no intermixture. The latter had already so gained
control of the fine territory which they first invaded as to be
absolute masters of it. Under them the land of Assyria had become
Semitic. More than this, they had gained sufficient influence by
conquest over the older Aramaean peoples toward the southeast, between
them and the Kassites and the Babylonians, as to take from the
Babylonians the Semitic leadership. Their colonies in the upper
Mesopotamian valley were centers of Semitic influence and stood as a
great bulwark against the non-Semitic influences on the north. By
crossing the Euphrates and conquering the land of Musri they had also
threatened the older Semitic civilizations in Syria and Palestine.
Would they be able to wrest the power from them, as they had from the
eastern Aramaeans and from the Babylonians? If this could be done, the
Assyrians would hold in their hands the destinies of the Semitic race.
It seemed as though they were to accomplish even this, when they were
suddenly checked by the successful rebellion of the Babylonians, by
civil war, and by the death of their great leader. This reverse might
mean their permanent overthrow if the Babylonian people still had in
their veins the courage, the dash, and the rugged independence of the
desert Semite. If, however, the intermixture of Sumerian and Kassite
blood, not to mention lesser strains, had weakened the Semitic powers
of the Babylonians, the check to Assyria might be only temporary. It is
a critical day in the history of the race. The severity of the blow to
Assyria is evidenced not only by the results in Babylonia, but no less
by the fragmentary character of Assyrian annals for a long time. It is,
indeed, for a time difficult not only to learn the course of events in
Assyria, but even the names and order of the kings. The Babylonian
Chronicle31
mentions an
Assyrian king, Tukulti-Asshur-Bel, in close connection with the history
of Tukulti-Ninib, but in words so obscure that his relation to the
history is difficult to understand. It is altogether probable that he
reigned as regent32
in
Assyria during the seven years in which his father was engaged in the
reducing and ruling of Babylon, but of his deeds in these years we have
no knowledge.

The successor of Tukulti-Ninib on the throne of
Assyria was his son,
Asshurnazirpal I, who had led the rebellion against him. In his reign
the ruin of Assyrian fortunes which began in his father's defeat and
death went rapidly on. The Babylonian king, Adad-shum-usur, felt
himself strong enough to follow up the advantage already gained by the
restoration of his family to power, and actually attacked Assyria, from
which he was only with difficulty repulsed.

The next Assyrian kings were Asshur-narara and
Nabu-daian (about
1250 B. C.), of whose reigns we know nothing, although we are able to
infer from the sequel that the Assyrian power continued to wane, while
the Babylonian increased. The reigns were short, and were soon
succeeded by Bel-kudur-usur and Ninib-apal-esharra, in whose clay the
Babylonians under the leadership of Meli-Shipak and Marduk-apal-iddina
invaded Assyria and stripped the once powerful kingdom of all its
southern and part at least of its northern and western conquered
territory. Apparently all was lost that the Assyrian kings of the
earlier day had won, and the end of Assyrian leadership had come, but
the motive force of the Assyrians was not destroyed.

The successor of Ninib-apal-esharra was Asshurdan
(about 1210 B.
C.), and with him begins the rehabilitation of Assyrian power. He
crossed the river Zab, and invading the territory which had been for
some time considered Babylonian, restored a small section of it to
Assyria. We know little else of his reign, but this is sufficient to
mark the turning point and explain what follows. His great-grandson,
Tiglathpileser, boasts of him that he reached a great age.33 In his reign the
rugged
virtues of the Assyrians were preparing for the reawakening which was
soon to come. Of the following reign of his son, Mutakkil-Nusku34 (about 1150 B.
C.), we have
no information, though we are probably safe in the supposition that his
father's work was continued, for we find in Babylonian history, as has
been seen, no evidence of any weakening of Assyria, but rather the
contrary. The gain in the Assyrian progress is shown more clearly by
the reign of his son, Asshur-rich-ishi (about 1140 B. C.), who is
introduced to us very fittingly as "the powerful king, the conqueror of
hostile lands, the subduer of all the evil."35
The beginning of his conquests was made by a successful campaign
against the Lulumi and the Kuti, who have found mention more than once
before. They must have either become independent, during the period of
Assyria's decline, or perhaps have been added to the restored
Babylonian empire. Having thus made sure of the territory on the south
and east, Asshur-rish-ishi was ready to meet the great and hereditary
foe of Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar I was now king in Babylon, and, flushed
with recent victory over a portion of Elam, was a dangerous antagonist.
The issue between the kings seems to have been joined not in the old
land of Babylonia south of Assyria, but in Mesopotamia, and the
Assyrians were victorious. Of the other deeds of Asshur-rish-ishi we
know nothing save that he restored again the temple of Ishtar in Calah.

Asshur-rish-ishi was succeeded by his son,
Tiglathpileser I
(Tukulti-pal-esharra, My help is the son of Esharra-that is, My help is
the god Ninib). There was therefore no break in the succession and no
new dynasty begins. Nevertheless, a new period of Assyrian history
really commences with the next king. With Asshur-rish-ishi ends the
first period of growth and decay and of renaissance. To his son he left
a kingdom almost as great as Assyria had yet possessed. Tiglathpileser
begins to reign with the titles of king of Kishshati and king of
Asshur; the only title belonging to his ancestors which he did not
possess was king of Sumer and Accad. With him we enter upon a wonderful
period in the career of the Assyrian people.

CHAPTER II

TIGLATHPILESER I AND HIS SONS

TIGLATHPILESER I (about 1120 B. C.) was the grand
monarch of western
Asia in his day, and the glory of his achievements was held in memory
in Assyria for ages after. It is fitting that one who wrought such
marvels in peace and war should have caused his deeds to be written
down with care and preserved in more than one copy.36 To his gods he ascribed the
credit of his works. Their names, a formidable number, stand at the
very head of the chief written memorials of his reign. Here are Asshur,
the ancient patron deity of his land, "the great lord, the director of
the hosts of the gods," and Bel also, and Sin, the moon god; Shamash,
the sun god; Adad, the god of the air, of storms, of thunder, and rain;
Ninib, "the hero;" and, last of all, the goddess Ishtar, "the firstborn
of the gods," whose name was ever to resound and be hallowed in the
later history of Nineveh.37
With so great a pantheon had the people of Assyria already enriched
themselves.

The annals of the king show that he planned his
campaigns well and
had a definite aim in each struggle against his enemies. When he
ascended the throne Babylonia was too weak to interfere with his labor
of building up anew the Assyrian empire, and no immediate campaign
southward was therefore necessary. On the other hand, there was a
threatening situation in the north and west. The nomadic tribes,
established in the hill country above the Mesopotamian valley,
northward of Harran, bad never been really subdued, and some fresh
effort had to be made to hold them in check or the integrity of the
kingdom might be endangered. The tribe that was now most threatening
was the Mushke. This people was settled in the territory north of
Milid, the modern Malatiyeh, on both sides of the upper waters of the
Euphrates. In later times they became famous as the Moschi38 of the Greeks,
and the Meshech39
of the Old Testament, being
in both cases associated with the Tubal or Tibareni, who at this period
lived toward the south and west, inhabiting a portion of the territory
later known as Kappadokia. The Mushke had crossed the Euphrates
southward and possessed themselves of the districts of Alzi and
Purukhumzi about fifty years before, in the period of Assyria's
weakness. The Assyrians had once overrun this very territory and
claimed presents for the god Asshur from its inhabitants, but it was
now fully in the control of the Mushke, and had for these fifty years
been paying tribute to them, and not to the Assyrians. Feeling their
strength, and unopposed by any other king, the Mushke, to the number of
about twenty thousand, in five bands, invaded the land of Kummukh. Here
was indeed a dangerous situation for Assyria, for if these people were
unchecked, they would not long be satisfied with the possession of this
northern part of Kummukh, but would seize it all, and perhaps invade
the land of Assyria it. self. Trusting in Asshur, his lord,
Tiglathpileser hastily assembled an army and marched against them. He
must cross the rough and wild Mount Masius and descend upon his enemies
among the head waters of the Tigris. How large a force of men he led in
this venture we do not know, but his victory was overwhelming. Of the
twenty thousand men who opposed him but six thousand remained alive to
surrender and accept Assyrian rule. The others were savagely butchered,
their heads cut off, and their blood scattered over the "ditches and
heights of the mountains."40
This savagery, so clearly met here for the first time, blackens the
whole record of Assyrian history to the end. It was usual in far less
degree among the Babylonians, so that the ascendancy of Assyria over
Babylonia is, in this light, the triumph of brute force over
civilization.

Having thus overwhelmed the advance guard of the
Mushke,
Tiglathpileser returns to reestablish, by conquest, the Assyrian
supremacy over the southern portions of the land of Kummukh. This
country was also quickly subdued and its cities wasted with fire,
perhaps as centers of possible rebellion. The fleeing inhabitants
crossed an arm of the Tigris toward the west and made a stand in the
city of Sherishe, which they fortified for defense. The Assyrian king
pursued across mountain and river, and carried by assault their
stronghold, butchering the fighting men as before. The men of Kummukh
had some forces from the land of Qurkhe41
as allies, but these profited little, and the united forces were
overwhelmed. Again the Tigris was crossed and the stronghold of
Urrakhin-ash laid waste. Rightly appreciating the terrible danger that
threatened them, the inhabitants gathered together their possessions,
together with their gods, and fled "like birds"42
into the mountain fastnesses that surrounded them. Their king realizing
the hopelessness of his state, came forth to meet his conqueror and to
seek some mercy at his hand. Tiglathpileser took the members of his
family as hostages, and received a rich gift of bronze plates, copper
bowls, and trays, and a hundred and twenty slaves, with oxen and sheep.
Strangely enough he spared his life, adding complacently to the record
the words: "I had compassion on him, (and) granted his life," which
hereafter was to be lived under Assyrian suzerainty. By these movements
the "broad land of Kummukh" was conquered, and the Assyrian ruled at
least as far as, if not beyond, Mount Masius. Great achievements these
for the first year of a reign, and the next year was equally
successful. It began with an invasion of the land of Shubari, which had
been conquered before by Adad-niari I, and had again rebelled, thence
the king marched into the countries of Alzi and Purukhumzi, of which we
heard in his first campaign, in order to lay upon them anew the old
annual tribute so long unpaid to Assyria. The cities of Shubari
surrendered without battle on the appearance of Tiglathpileser, and the
district north of Mount Masius was all a tribute-paying land. On the
return from this campaign the land of Kummukh is again devastated. The
exaggeration of the king's annals appears strongly here, for if, in the
campaign of the first year, Kummukh had been so thoroughly wasted as
the king's words declare, there would certainly have been little left
to destroy in the next year. This time there is added at the conclusion
one sentence which did not appear before. " The land of Kummukh, in its
whole extent, I subjugated and added to the territory of my land."43 Well may such a
conqueror
continue in the words which immediately follow: "Tiglathpileser, the
powerful king, overwhelmer of the disobedient, he who overcomes the
opposition of the wicked."44
The control of the great Mesopotamian valley in its northern portion
between the Tigris and the Euphrates is safely lodged in Assyrian
hands.

The third year of the reign of Tiglathpileser
contained no less than
three campaigns. The first, against Kharia45
and Qurkhi, we cannot follow in its geographical details, and are
therefore unable fully to realize its meaning and importance. It was a
mountain campaign, full of toilsome ascents, and carried on with the
usual savage accompaniments. In quite a different direction lay the
course of the second campaign of this year. In. stead of the north, it
was the south that now claimed attention. The king crosses the Lower
Zab River, which discharges its waters into the Tigris not far south of
the ancient capital, Asshur, and conquers an inaccessible region amid
the mountains of its upper courses. A third campaign again carries him
to the north against Sugi, in Qurkhi, and results also in a victory,
from which no less than twenty-five gods were brought back to Assyria
in triumphal subjection to Anu, Adad, and Ishtar.

The great undertaking of the fourth year of the
king's reign was a
campaign into the lands of the Nairi.46
By this the annals of Tiglathpileser clearly mean the lands about the
sources of the Tigris and Euphrates, lying north, west, and south of
Lake Van. In this territory there was as yet no Chaldian kingdom, but
no less than twenty-three native kings or princes united their forces
to oppose the Assyrian. There was more mountain climbing to reach them,
and then they were severely punished. The kings were taken alive, and
after swearing oaths of fealty to the gods of Assyria were liberated.
Chariots and troops of horses, with much treasure of every kind, were
taken, and a yearly tribute of twelve hundred horses and two thousand
oxen was put upon the inhabitants, who were not removed from their land47 One only of
these
twenty-three kings--Sini, the king of Daiyaeni48--refusing
to surrender as the others, resisted to the last. He was therefore
carried in chains to Assyria, where he probably saw reasons for
submission, for he was suffered to depart alive. This episode in the
king's conquests is concluded with the claim that the whole of the
lands of Nairi were subdued, but later history shows clearly that
further conquest was necessary. It was a great move forward in
Assyria's growth into a world power to have accomplished this much. As
a part of the same campaign tribute was collected from the territory
about Milid, and another year of activity was ended.

By comparison with the previous four years the fifth
seems a year of
less result. Aramaean peoples inhabiting the Syrian wastes, west of the
upper waters of the Euphrates and south of the city of Carchemish, had
crossed the river into Mesopotamia. Tiglathpileser expelled them, and
so again strengthened Assyrian supremacy in northern Mesopotamia as far
as Carchemish. Following up his easily won victory, the king crossed
the Euphrates in pursuit and laid waste six Aramaean cities at the foot
of Mount Bishri.

The campaign of the next year was directed against
the land of Musri,49
which had already felt the
arm of Assyria in the reign of Shalmaneser I. The people of Musri were
aided by allies from the land of Qumani,50
and both lands were subjugated and a yearly tribute put upon them,
after they had suffered all the horrors of the savage Assyrian method
of warfare. In the language of the annals, their heads were cut off
like sheep."

The king thus records the results of his five years
of campaigns:
"In all, forty-two centuries and their kings from beyond the Lower Zab
(and) the border of the distant mountains to beyond the Euphrates, to
the land of the Hittites and the Upper Sea51
of the setting sun, from the beginning of my sovereignty until my fifth
year my hand has conquered. Of one mind I made them all; their hostages
I took; tribute and taxes I imposed upon them." With this notice in the
annals of Tiglathpileser ends all account of his campaigns. No other
word concerning any further raids or ravages is spoken. Were it not for
the Synchronistic History we should know nothing more of his prowess.
The information which thus comes to us is not so full as are the notes
which we have already passed in review, but it supplies what was
needful to round out the circle of his marching and conquering. It was
improbable that a king who had conquered north, west, and east should
not also find cause for attacking the coveted land of Babylonia. From
the Synchronistic History52
we learn that he twice invaded the territory of Marduk-nadin-akhe and
marched even to Babylon itself, where he was styled king of the Four
Quarters of the World. So ends the story of the wars of Tiglathpileser
I. He had not only restored the kingdom of Assyria to the position
which it held in the days of Shalmaneser and Tukulti-Ninib; be had made
it still more great. Never had so many peoples paid tribute to the
Assyrians, and never was so large a territory actually ruled from the
Assyrian capital.

But Tiglathpileser was no less great in peace than
in war He brought
back the capital of Assyria from Calah to Asshur and almost rebuilt the
city, which had thus again become important. The temples of Ishtar,
Adad, and Bel were rebuilt. The palaces which had fallen into ruin
during the absence of the court were again restored and beautified. And
then into this city thus renewed, and into this land enlarged by
conquest, the king brought the wealth of the world as he had gathered
it. Goats, fallow deer, and wild sheep were herded into the land.
Horses in large numbers taken from conquered lands or received in
yearly tribute were added to the peaceful service of agriculture. But
not even here did the king rest. He caused trees also to be brought
from great distances and planted in the land he loved.53 It is a
marvelous story of
peaceful achievement, worthy of a place by the side of his overpowering
success in war.

In addition to the serious work of war and peace the
king found time
to cultivate the wiles of a sportsman, and great are his boasts of the
birds and the cattle and even the lions which he slew. This passion for
sport is commemorated long afterward in an inscription of
Asshurnazirpal, in which we are told that Tiglathpileser sailed in
ships of Arvad upon the Mediterranean.54
It follows from this that after the six campaigns, enumerated above,
the king must have made another which carried him out to the Phoenician
coast, where his successors were later to fight great battles and win
great triumphs.

Of the conclusion of the reign of Tiglathpileser we
know nothing. He
probably died in peace, for he was succeeded by his son,
Asshur-bel-kala (about 1090 B. C.), and the latter was followed after a
short reign by another son of Tiglathpileser, Shamshi-Adad I (about
1080 B. C.). So easy and unbroken a succession makes it a fair
presumption that the times were peaceful. The sons were not able to
bear the burden which came to them, so that there is speedily a falling
off in the power and dignity of the kingdom. When we look back on. the
reign of Tiglathpileser and ask what of permanent value for Assyria was
achieved by all his wars the answer is disappointing. He might boast
that he had conquered from east to west, from the Lower Zab to the
Mediterranean, and from the south to the north, from Babylonia to Lake
Van, but what were these conquests, for the most part, but raids of
intimidation and of plunder? He did not really extend the government of
Assyria to such limits, even though in Kummukh he actually appointed
Assyrian governors. Over this great territory, however, he made the
name of Assyria feared, so that the lesser peoples surrendered at times
without striking a blow for freedom, while the greater peoples dared
not think of invading Assyrian territory. This insurance against
invasion was the great gain which he brought to his country. By
carrying savage war to other nations he secured for his own a peace
which gave opportunity for progress in the arts. These great temples
and palaces required time for their erection and time for the training
of men who were skilled in the making of bricks and the working of
wood. The very inscription from which we have learned the facts of his
reign, a beautiful clay prism with eight hundred and nine lines of
writing, bears impressive witness to a high state of civilization and
an era of peace.

Of the reigns of the two sons we know almost
nothing.
Asshur-bel-kala maintained terms of peace with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati
(about 1094-1083 B. C.), king of Babylonia, who thereby seemed to be
considered an independent monarch and not subject to the Assyrians, as
his predecessor bad been. In this reign the capital appears to have
been transferred to Nineveh,55
and a word in the only inscription of the king which has come down to
us hints at the king's control in the west.56
After a short reign Asshur-bel-kala was succeeded by his brother,
Shamshi-Adad, whose only work known to us was the rebuilding of the
temple of Ishtar in Nineveh-another proof that the capital was now
located at this city and not at Asshur.

After this reign there is another long period of
silence in Assyrian
history, of which we have no native monumental witnesses; a period of
immense importance in the history of mankind, for it was a time not
only of silence but of actual decay in the Assyrian commonwealth. As
the fortunes of Assyria were at so low an ebb, the time was favorable
for the growth and development of peoples elsewhere who were for a time
free from the threatening of Assyrian arms. When once more we come upon
a period of historical writing and of great deeds in Assyria we shall
find the Assyrian conquerors confronting a changed condition of affairs
in the world. To the growth of new conditions elsewhere we must now
address our thought for a better understanding of Assyrian movements
after the silent period.

CHAPTER III

THE INCREASE OF ASSYRIAN POWER OVER BABYLONIA

AFTER the dynasty of Isin had ceased to rule in
Babylonia, brought
to an end we know not how, there arose a dynasty known to the
Babylonian historiographers and chronologists as the dynasty of the Sea
Lands. The territory known as the Sea Lands was alluvial land at the
estuaries of the Tigris and the Euphrates upon the Persian Gulf. This
fertile country, already beginning to show its growing power, was
destined at a later period to exercise a great influence upon the
history of Babylonia. The dynasty of the Sea Lands numbered only three
kings, who reigned together but twenty-one years and five months,57 or, as the
Babylonian
Chronicle has it, twenty-three years.58
This variation in the time given by the two chief Babylonian
authorities is instructive in its showing that the Babylonians
themselves did not preserve so accurate a memory of this time as of the
earlier and later periods.

The first king of the dynasty was Sibar-shipak
(about 1074-1057 B.
C.), of whose reign we know only that it ended disastrously, for he was
slain and buried in the palace of Sargon.59

The next king was Ea-mukin-zer (about 1057 B. C.),
who reigned but
five months according to the King List, or three months according to
the Chronicle. Of his reign, also, we have no further knowledge.60

The last king was Kasshu-nadin-akhe, son of Sippai,
who reigned but
three years (about 10561054 B. C.) (Chronicle, six years), whose works
are likewise unknown to us.

All of these kings, according to the statement of a
later monarch,
had labored upon the rebuilding of the Temple of the Sun at Sippar.

Immediately after this dynasty there follows another
of three kings,
called the dynasty of the house of Bazi, of which we know only the
names of the rulers and the somewhat doubtful number of years which
they reigned. These kings are

After this dynasty comes another with only one king,
whose name is
unknown. He is called an Elamite, reigned six years, and was buried in
the palace of Sargon (about 1032-1027 B. C.). In his seizing of the
throne we are reminded of the former Elamite movements under Eri-Aku.

With these three dynasties we have passed over a
period of history
in Babylonia of perhaps forty-six years. Our lack of knowledge of the
period is of course partly due to absence of original documents, but it
is also probably due to the fact that there was little to tell. We have
lighted upon degenerate days. The real Babylonian stock had exhausted
its vigor, and was now intermixed with Kassite and other foreign
blood-a mixture which would later prove stronger than the pure blood
which had preceded it, for mixed races have generally been superior to
those of pure blood. But there was hardly time yet for a display of its
real force. Besides this Babylonia had suffered from invasions from
Assyria, from Elam, and from the Sea Lands, at the head of the Persian
Gulf. It was not surprising that a period not only of peace but of
stagnation had come.

The most noteworthy fact in these forty-six years is
the arising
from the far south of the so. called dynasty of the Sea Lands. The
names of these three kings are chiefly Kassite, and that would seem to
imply that the Kassites had also overrun this land as well as the more
central parts of Babylonia. However that may be, this is the country
which is also called the land of the Kaldi, or, in the later form, the
land of Chaldea. This is the period of the growth and development of
new states on all sides, as we shall see in the survey to follow, and
it is the first appearance of the Chaldeans in Babylonian history.
Their subsequent history shows that they were Semites, though perhaps,
as above stated, of somewhat mixed blood. It is not known when they
first entered the land by the sea, from which they had now invaded
Babylonia. It has been suggested that their power in Babylonia was
attained not by conquest, but by a slow progress of emigration.61 The view is
plausible,
perhaps even probable, for they seem to have become kings in a period
of profound peace, but there is no sure evidence.

In following the line of Babylonian kings we have
now reached
another period of extreme difficulty. The native Babylonian King Lists
are so badly broken that no names are legible for a long period, and
but very few of the numerals which give their years of reign. It is
possible, however, from the fragmentary notices of Assyrian kings, from
the Synchronistic History, and from certain business documents to
recover a few of the names, which will be set down in their approximate
order as the story progresses. The next of the kings of Babylonia seems
to have been Nabu-ukin-abli,62
who reigned apparently thirty-six years (about 1026-991 B. C.), and
whose portrait, accompanied by his titles as king of Kishshati and king
of Babylonia, is given on a curious boundary stone. This is all that is
known of him or his reign.

While we have been laboriously threading our way
though the weary
mazes of this obscure succession of dynasties in Babylonia we have left
aside a period of silence in Assyria after the reign of Tiglathpileser
I and his two sons. We have now seen that during this period there was
no display of power and energy in Babylonia, but the people of Chaldea,
using perhaps this very opportunity, had been able to establish
themselves well in their own land, and even to attain power in
Babylonia.

In the west there were movements of still greater
importance among
the Semitic peoples. Just as the decay of Babylonian power gave
opportunity to the Chaldeans, so the decay of Assyrian power and the
consequent absence of its threats against the west gave great
opportunity to the peoples of Syria and Palestine. As the Assyrian
power must soon meet these new foes, as well as old foes in new
locations, we must survey this field of the west before we proceed
further with the story of Assyria.

Several times before in this history we have met
with a people known
as the Aramaeans. Like the Assyrians and Babylonians, they were a
Semitic people whose original homeland was Arabia, and probably
northern Arabia. Whether Aramaeans began to leave Arabia before or
after the Babylonians will probably never be known with certainty. As
the Mesopotamian valley was so much more desirable a place of dwelling
than the lands later occupied by the Aramaeans, it seems reasonable to
suppose that this valley was already occupied by the Babylonians when
the Aramaeans came out of Arabia and moved northward. They left
settlements along the edges of the Babylonian kingdom, some of which
were readily absorbed, while others remained to vex their stronger
neighbors for centuries. In their migrations toward the north they
seemed to follow very nearly the course of the Euphrates, though bodies
of them crossed over toward the Tigris and became, as we have seen,
thorny neighbors of the Assyrians during the founding of the Assyrian
kingdom. At the period which we have now reached their strongest
settlements were along the northern Euphrates, in the neighborhood of
the river Sajur. Pitru (the biblical Pethor63)
and Mutkinu, which had been filled with Assyrian colonists by
Tiglathpileser, were now in the hands of the Aramaeans. It is
altogether probable, also, that they had silently possessed themselves
of territory farther north along the Euphrates, perhaps even as far as
Amid, which Tiglathpileser had conquered, but which had to be
reconquered, and from the Aramaeans, in a short time. But the greatest
achievement of the Aramaeans was not in the upper Mesopotamian valley.
They were in force in this valley when the Hittite empire fell to
pieces, and to them came the best of what it possessed. Carchemish, at
the fords of the Euphrates, had been passed by, and moving westward,
they had seized Aleppo and Hamath and then, most glorious and powerful
of all, Damascus fell into their hands. Here they founded their
greatest kingdom, and centuries must elapse before the Assyrians would
be able to break down this formidable barrier to their western
progress. But these facts have another significance besides the
political. The Aramaeans were essentially traders. The territory which
they now possessed was the key to the trade between the east and the
west. The products of Assyria and of Babylonia could not cross into
Syria and thence in ships over the Mediterranean westward without
passing through this Aramaean territory, and so paying tribute. The
Aramaeans had become the land traders, as the Phoenicians were the sea
traders. Now, the Assyrians were also a commercial people, shrewd,
eager, and persevering. It could not be long before the king of Assyria
would be pressed by the commercial life of Nineveh to undertake wars
for the winning back from the Aramaeans of this territory so valuable
in itself, and so important for the development of Assyrian commerce.
However the Assyrians, who were never a maritime people, might endure
the submission of their commercial ambition to the Phoenicians on the
sea, it was not likely that they would yield up the highways of the
land to a people less numerous and less strong than themselves. In the
period of decay that followed the reign of Tiglathpileser this new
power had risen up to bar their progress. We shall see shortly how the
difficulty was met.

During the same period another power, not so great,
and yet destined
to influence strongly the later history of Assyria and soon to excite
Assyrian cupidity, had been slowly developing in the land of Palestine
south of the Aramaean strongholds. When the Hebrews crossed over the
Jordan into Palestine they found a number of disorganized tribes lately
freed from Egyptian rule and not yet organized into a confederation
sufficiently strong to resist the fresh blood which came on them
suddenly from out the desert.64
The Hebrews in their desert sojourn had worn off the feeling of a
subject population, and from the desert air had taken in at every
breath the freedom which to this very day inspires the desert Arab. It
was a resistless force which Joshua led in the desultory campaigns
beyond the Jordan. The period of the Judges was a rude and barbaric
age, but it was an age in which Israel developed some idea of national
life and some power of self-government. If the conquests of
Tiglathpileser had continued many years longer, he would surely have
been led to invade Palestine, and the Hebrews, without a fixed central
government, without a kingly leader, without a standing army, would
have fallen an easy prey to his disciplined and victorious troops. But
the period of Assyrian weakness which followed his reign gave the
needed breathing spell in the west, and the kingdom of Saul and David
was established. Herein was established a new center of influence ready
to oppose the ambition of Assyrian kings and the commercial cupidity of
Assyrian traders.

The political aspect of western Asia had changed
considerably in the
period 1050-950 B. C. During this century we do not know anything of
the life of the Assyrian people. The names of the kings Asshurnazirpal
II (about 1050 B. C.), Erba-Adad, and Asshur-nadin-akhe belong in this
period, and the last two erected buildings in the city of Asshur, the
restoration of which became a care to a later king65 after a lapse of one hundred
and fifty years. After these kings there ruled a certain Asshur-erbi,
though whether he was their immediate successor or not does not appear.
He has left us no accounts of his wars or of his labors. From the
allusions of two later Assyrian kings we learn that it was in his reign
that the Aramaeans seized Pitru (Pethor) and Mutkinu,66 so that his reign is another
evidence of the period of weakness and decay in Assyria. But he seems,
on the other hand, to have invaded the far west, for on the Phoenician
coast he carved his portrait in relief upon the rocks,67 probably in the
rocky gorge
of the Nahr-el-Kelb, north of Beirut, a place much used for the same
purpose by later Assyrian conquerors.

At about 950 B. C. Tiglathpileser IT began to reign
in Assyria, and
from his time on to the end of the Assyrian empire we possess an
unbroken list of the names of the kings. He is called king of Kishshati
and king of Asshur,68
and
with his name and his titles our knowledge begins and ends. He was
succeeded by his son, Asshur-dan II69
(about 930 B. C.), and he again by his son, Adad-nirari II (911-891 B.
C.), in whose reign the old struggles between Assyria and Babylonia
began again. Babylonia was now ruled by Shamash-mudammik, and these two
monarchs met in battle at the foot of Mount Yalman and the Babylonian
was utterly overthrown. We hear no more of him, and his life may have
ended in the battle.

The struggle was renewed by his successor,
Nabushum-ishkun, who
likewise suffered defeat at the hands of Adad-nirari IT, and was
compelled to yield some cities to the Assyrians, after which a treaty
of peace was made between the two nations. Besides these notices of the
relations between the two kingdoms our only record of the times is a
short inscription of Adad-nirari II,70
in which his genealogy only is given. His son, Tukulti-Ninib IT
(890-885 B. C.), introduces us to the threshold of a new period of
Assyrian conquest. He began again the campaigns in the north, which had
rested since the days of Tiglathpileser I, over whose course, in part,
he marched, piercing the highlands even to the confines of Urartu
(Armenia) and extending his ravages from Lake Urumiyeh on the east to
the land of Kummukh on the west. At Supnat (Sebeneh-Su) he caused his
relief portrait to be set up alongside of that of Tiglathpileser, whose
exploits he had been emulating.

In his reign Assyria gives plain indication that the
period of decay
and of weakness was past. The Babylonians had been partially humbled,
and were at least not threatening. The Assyrians were therefore free to
begin again to assert the right to tribute in the north and northwest.
In the next reign the issue is joined, and a new period of Assyrian
progress begins.

CHAPTER IV

THE REIGN OF ASSHURNAZIRPAL

WHEN Asshurnazirpal (885-860 B. C.) succeeded his
father on the
throne of Assyria he inherited opportunities rather than actual
possessions. The kingdom over which be ruled from his capital city of
Nineveh was comparatively small. Babylonia, while not physically so
strong as Assyria, was, nevertheless, entirely independent under the
reign of Nabu-apal-iddin (about 880 B. C.), who probably began to reign
very shortly after Asshurnazirpal. The countries to the north which bad
been conquered by Tiglathpileser I and again overrun by Tukulti-Ninib
were only tributary, and not really governed from Nineveh. Furthermore
their tribute was not paid voluntarily, but only when an Assyrian army
stood ready to collect it by force. The Aramaeans possessed the best
lands in the upper Mesopotamian valley, and must be met on the field of
battle. The opportunity was great, because none of these peoples were
strong enough to oppose Assyria single-handed, and there was no present
prospect of any sort of union between them. Asshurnazirpal was in every
respect the man for this situation; no king like him bad arisen before
in Assyria.

Abundant historical material enables us to follow
closely the
development of his plans and the course and conduct of his campaigns.
His standard inscription upon alabaster71
contains three hundred and eighty-nine lines of writing, and gives, in
almost epic grandeur, the story of the truly imperial plans which he
had made for Assyria. This longest and best known text is supplemented
by no less than eight other texts,72
some shorter originally, some fragmentary. Some of these are
repetitions, either in the same or varying phrase, and thus add to the
certainty of the text which may be made from their comparison.

In the very first year of the king's reign his
campaigns of conquest
begin, and it is in the north that he must first tranquilize
populations by destruction and savage butchery. The course of his march
was first northwestward, apparently following closely the course of the
Tigris for a short distance and then striking due north over
"impassable roads and trackless mountains" to the land of Nimme, which
we are to locate west of Lake Van, about the neighborhood of Mush.73 Here were found
strong
cities, meaning thereby cities fortified against invasion, which were
soon captured, with the loss of many fighting men to the enemy.
According to the Assyrian account the remainder of the defenders fled
into the mountains, there to hide like birds until, after a three days'
march, Asshurnazirpal overtook them "nested" amid the fastnesses and
slew two hundred of them. Thence returning again into their country, he
threw down the walls of their cities and dug them up, and set fire to
the heaps of ruins. There was no reason to doubt that the survivors
would pay tribute to Assyria, if indeed anything had been left them
wherewith to pay after such a visitation. The memory of such discipline
might be expected to abide, while the report of it was sure to spread
rapidly, after the fashion of an oriental story, among surrounding
tribes who might learn from it the wisdom of surrender and of tribute
paying without an attempt at a defense of national or tribal liberty.
So it fell out, for when Asshurnazirpal, leaving the waste behind him,
went southwestward into the land of Kirruri,74
by the side of Mount Rowandiz, he found ready for his taking a great
tribute of oxen, sheep, wine, and a bowl of copper, and an Assyrian
governor was easily established over the land, to look rather after its
tribute than its worthy governing. And while these events were
happening the people of Gozan between the Tigris and Lake Urumiyeh) and
the people of Khubushkia,75
who lived west of them and nearer the old limits of Assyria, also sent
a voluntary tribute consisting of "horses, silver, gold, lead, copper,
and a bowl of copper." From such bloodless successes the king turned
southward into the land of Qurkhi of Betani (along the bank of the
Tigris eastward of Diarbekir) and fought with a population who only
fled to the mountains after a bitter defeat. They also were overtaken,
and two hundred and sixty of their heads were built into a pyramid;
their cities were wasted and burned, and an Assyrian governor was set
to rule them. Bubu, the son of the chief of Nishtum, one of their
cities, was flayed in the city of Arbela and his skin spread on the
fortress wall.

So stands the sickening record of the first year's
campaign.76
This savage beginning augured
ill for the new states which had sprung up since the days of
Tiglathpileser. What mercy was there to be found in a man of this
quality? If years and vigor were his portion, it would be difficult to
set a limit to his success as a conqueror, while the early placing of
governors over communities which had surrendered seemed to imply that
he had also gifts as an administrator. But we follow his story further.
In the next year (884 B. C.) the king invaded Kummukh, perhaps to
insure payment of the annual tribute, or there may have been signs of
rebellion. There was more of conquering to do on the way, and then
Kummukh was entered, apparently without a struggle. But before the
king's purpose had developed, whatever it may have been, he was
summoned to the banks of the Euphrates.

The Aramaean communities along the Euphrates had no
central
government. They lived under the old forms of city governments, some
still independent, some dependencies of Assyria with Assyrian
governors. Bit-Khalupe was one of these subject communities located on
the Euphrates, about halfway between the Balikh and the Khabur (modern
Halebe), and the governor was Khamitai, an Assyrian subject. There was
a rebellion here-so ran the intelligence brought to the Assyrians-the
Assyrian governor was slain, and his place had been given to a certain
Akhiyababa brought from Bit-Adini. It was summons enough.
Asshurnazirpal showing thereby the mobility of his army, came southward
along the course of the Khabur, halting at Sadikan (or Gardikan, the
modern Arban77)
to
receive tribute from an Aramaean prince, Shulman-khaman-ilani, and
again at Shuma to receive like honor from Ilu-Adad, in silver, gold,
lead, plates of copper, variegated cloths, and linen vestments. The
news of his approach reached Bit-Khalupe, and the faint hearts of the
people sank in them. They surrendered, saying as they came from the
city gates and took hold of the conqueror's feet, in token of
submission, "Thou willest and it is death, thou willest and it is life;
the will of thy heart will we perform."78
But even this abject surrender did not avail with such a man as
Asshurnazirpal. He attacked the city and compelled the delivering up of
all the soldiers who had joined in the rebellion. No mention is made of
the treatment of the private soldiers, but their officers' legs were
cut off. The nobles who had shared in the uprising were flayed, and
their skins stretched over a pyramid erected, and apparently for this
very purpose, at the chief gate of the city. Then the city, plundered
of all its wealth and beauty,79
was left a monument of ferocity and a warning to conspirators. The
unhappy Akhi-yababa was sent off to Nineveh, there to be flayed that
his skin might adorn the fortress walls, while his place as Assyrian
governor over Bit-Khalupe was taken by Azilu. As in the former year,
the story of this punishment went abroad. The rulers of Laqi80 and Khindanu81 hastened to send
tribute to
the conqueror while he was staying at Suri, while yet another Aramaean
people, the Shuhites, sent Ilubani, their ruler, and his sons to carry
a costly tribute direct to Nineveh.

Following these events there was a lull in the
king's actions, while
he stayed at Nineveh, as though there were no more lands to conquer.
But news reached him of a revolt among Assyrian colonists planted by
Shalmaneser I at Khalzi-lukha,82
under the leadership of one Khula. Again must the king march northward
into lands always troubled. On this march the king erected at the
sources of the river Supnat a great inscribed portrait of himself by
the side of the reliefs of Tiglathpileser I and Tukulti-Ninib. Thence
he moved northwestward to the slopes of Mount Masius, where Khula was
captured, his men butchered, and his city razed. On the return march,
in the country of Nirbi, the lowlands about the modern Diarbekir,83 he took and
devastated the
chief city, Tela, which was defended by a threefold wall, slaying three
thousand of its fighting men. A little farther south the king
approached the city of Tuskha,84
in whose site he apparently recognized an important vantage point, for
he halted to restore it. The old city wall was changed, and a new wall
built in massive strength from foundation to the coping. Within these
walls a royal palace was erected, an entirely new structure. A new
relief of the king's person, fashioned of white limestone, and
inscribed with an account of the king's wars and conquests in the land
of Nairi, was set in the city walls, to be studied as a warning by its
inhabitants. The city thus rebuilt and restored was peopled by Assyrian
colonists and made a storehouse for grain and fodder. The aim,
apparently, was to use it as a base of supplies in military operations
against the north and west. Some of the inhabitants of the land had
fled, but upon payment of homage were allowed to return to their cities
and homes, many of these in ruins. A heavy annual tribute was put upon
them, and their sons were taken away to Nineveh as hostages.

While engaged in this work of reconstruction much
tribute was
received from neighboring states. Later in the year another district in
the land of Nirbu, near Mount Masius, revolted, and was subdued in the
usual manner. On the return journey to Nineveh the people of Qurkhi,
the inhabitants about Malatiyeh, and the Hittites paid tribute to the
apparently resistless conqueror. The next year (882) witnessed an
uprising in the southeast led by Zab-Dadi, a prince of the country of
Dagara, to whom the people of Zamua85
also joined themselves. There was thus in revolt a considerable section
of territory lying in the mountains east of the Tigris and between the
Lower Zab and the Turnat (modern Shirwan) Rivers. Not satisfied with
the attempt to escape annual tribute, these daring warriors thought to
invade Assyrian soil. The battle with them, fought, out in the
lowlands, was an Assyrian victory, and the campaign ended in the
receipt of a heavy tribute, and the taking of many cities, which,
contrary to former custom, were not destroyed.86
This new method was, however, soon abandoned, for the next year (881)
these people refused to pay their tribute, and their country was again
invaded. This time savagery had its sway, and the cities were dug up
and burned, while blood was poured out like water. It was now safe to
advance through the broken land farther into the mountains for more
plunder, but we are not able to follow the king's movements in this
extended campaign for lack of geographical knowledge.

It is especially noteworthy that, though the usual
destructions
prevailed, there were again displayed some constructive ideas, for the
city of Atlila,87
which
had previously been destroyed by the Babylonians, was rebuilt and made
an Assyrian fortress, with a king's palace, and with the Assyrian name
of Dur-Asshur. This completed, for a time at least, the subjugation of
the eastern borders of the kingdom, and the king could establish a
regular collection of tribute in the north. The wealth poured into
Calah year after year in these raids must have been enormous. Herein
lies the explanation of the possibility of maintaining a standing army
and carrying on conquests of outlying territory. The Assyrian people
could not have stood the drain of resources necessary for foreign
conquest, nor could the merchants of Nineveh have borne a system of
taxation sufficient to maintain armies so constantly on the march. It
is noteworthy that nearly every campaign made thus far in this
brilliant reign was for tribute gathering. The king was not yet ready
for the attempt to add largely to his empire, nor even to extend widely
the area of his tribute getting. Time for the training of his army was
necessary, and funds had to be accumulated for the payment and
equipment of his troops. Undoubtedly many adventurers from among
foreign conquered peoples fought in the armies of Asshurnazirpal, and
found their compensation in such booty as they were allowed to
appropriate. It remains, however, true that the cost of the military
establishment must have been great, and the collection of tribute sup.
plied this outlay. The king watched closely the collection of tribute,
and nonpayment anywhere was the signal for a sudden descent on the
offenders. "During the eponymy of Bel-aku (881 B. C.) I was staying in
Nineveh when news was brought that Ameka and Arastua had withheld the
tribute and dues of Asshur my lord"88--so
began this campaign of which we have just spoken, and so began many
another. Herein we have an instructive commentary on the whole policy
of Assyria for years to come. Let us recall the need of conquering the
Aramaeans to secure commercial extension, and the need of the tribute
to maintain an army capable of such conquest, and in these two motives,
the one depending upon the other, we have the explanation of Assyrian
history for this reign, and for not less than six reigns after it.

In the next year (880 B. C.) the king collected in
person the
tribute of the land of Kummukh, afterward pushing on through the land
of Qurkhi, into the fastnesses of Mount Masius, for a like purpose, and
finally returning to the fortress of Tushkha to continue his former
building operations. That so large a part of the year is occupied with
the careful and systematic collection of tribute foreshadows a great
campaign of conquest toward which this storing up of supplies of money
and material is a necessary preparation. Possibly the traders of
Nineveh, profiting by the earlier punishment of the Aram2eaus, were
urging the king to wider conquests in the prosperous west, which would
result in a still further extension of their trade. However that may
be, the year 879 brought matters of immense importance in Assyrian
history. The king first marched southwest to the Euphrates and the
Khabur. The Aramaeans of Bit-Khalupe had not forgotten their sore
discipline, and paid their tribute at once. And in like manner one
community after another gave their silver and gold, their horses and
cattle, to their suzerain as he moved slowly down the Euphrates to Anat
(modern Anath).

All this resembles former campaigns, but now a
sudden change
appears. Attempting to collect tribute at Suru (another city of the
same name as the capital of Bit-Khalupe), Asshurnazirpal finds the
Shuhites, whose chief city Suru was, in league with the Kassite
Babylonians in their resistance. The Babylonian king at this time was
Nabu-apaliddin, who began to reign in his ancient city probably very
soon after Asshurnazirpal began to reign in Assyria. He was either a
weak man or a man of extraordinary policy, or he would long before this
have been in conflict with his northern neighbor. In the discontent of
the Shuhites he saw a hopeful opportunity for injuring Assyria without
too great risk to his own fortunes. He contributed to the revolt not
less than fifty horsemen and three thousand footmen-a considerable
contribution in the warfare of that century. For two days the battle
raged in and about Suru before the Assyrians obtained the mastery.
Asshurnazirpal punished this uprising in his usual way, by utterly
wasting the city, slaying many of its inhabitants, and carrying away
immense spoil. He is probably narrating only the simple truth when he
says that the fear of his sovereignty prevailed as far as Kardunyash
and overwhelmed the land of Kaldu. The Babylonian king, though be
continued to reign for some time after this, gave no further trouble to
Assyria. He was kept busily engaged in his own land in two important
enterprises. The Aramaean tribe known as the Sutu, whom we have met in
this story in northern Babylonia, had centuries before wrought ruin at
the ancient religious city of Sippar, where the worship of the sun god
had its especial seat. With the destruction of the temples the worship
carried on for so many centuries ended. The former kings belonging to
the dynasty of the Sea Lands, Shamashshipak and Kasshu-nadin-akhe, had
tried in vain to prevent the total destruction of the temple and to
reorganize its worship. Their efforts had completely failed, and the
temple had now become a hopeless ruin, covered with sand of the near-by
desert. Here was a work for the pious king. Dislodging the Sutu from
the city by force of arms, Nabu-apal-iddin began the reconstruction and
restoration of the fallen temple, and carried the work to a successful
conclusion, setting up again the splendid old ceremonial worship of the
sun. The inscription in which he has celebrated these deeds is one of
the most beautiful monuments of ancient Babylonia.89 To carry them out fully he
seems to have maintained the peace with Asshurnazirpal and his
successor.

But if the success and severity of Asshurnazirpal
caused the king of
Babylon to occupy himself entirely with internal affairs, it had little
effect on the hardy and daring Aramaeans, for scarcely had the Assyrian
king returned to Calah when he was again called into the field by the
revolt of the men of Laqi and Khindanu and of the whole Shuhite people.
This time the king was better prepared for the work in hand, for he had
boats constructed at Suru, and was therefore able to follow the
fugitives to the river islands. The ruin of this campaign seems awful
even after the lapse of centuries. The cities were utterly broken down
and burned, the inhabitants butchered when they could be taken, and
even the standing crops were destroyed that neither man nor beast might
eat and live. It was no real compensation for such deeds that two new
cities were founded, one on the hither bank of the Euphrates, named
Kar-Asshurnazir-pal (that is, fortress of A.), and the other on the far
bank, called Nibarti-Asshur90
(that is, the ford of Asshur), for these could only be intended for
military purposes, and not as a contribution to civilization or as
abiding places for a ruined people. But the king was not satisfied that
he had got at the root of the trouble, and the next year followed up
his advantage with another campaign apparently intended to cut off any
further rebellion at the fountain head. It seems probable that the real
source of the energy and enthusiasm which sustained so many rebellions
among the Aramaeans was the state of Bit-Adini, on the Euphrates, above
the mouth of the Khabur.91
The most powerful Aramaean settlements were here, and the capital city,
Kap-rabi92
(great rock),
was populous, well fortified, and defiant. If this city were taken,
there would be hopes of crushing out completely the spirit of
resistance.

In his next campaign (877 B. C.) Asshurnazirpal
besieged the city
and took it by assault, in which eight hundred of the enemy were killed
and two thousand four hundred made prisoners. This was followed by its
complete destruction, and an end was therefore made of incitements to
rebellion in Bit-Adini. The effect on the remaining Aramaean
settlements along the Euphrates was as marked as it was sudden. Others
sent their unpaid tribute at once, and there was, during the reign of
Asshurnazirpal, no further trouble over the prompt payment of the
Aramaean tribute. With this campaign Asshurnazirpal had not indeed
ended forever the fitful struggles of the Aramaeans against superior
force. These were all renewed again in the very next reign. He had,
however, settled the question that there could be no strong Aramaean
state in that valley. The Aramaean people must go elsewhere to make
their contribution to history and civilization.

The time had come, therefore, when all the lands
north, east, and
west as far as the Euphrates which had paid tribute to Tiglathpileser I
were again paying it regularly to Asshurnazirpal. There were no more of
these states left to tranquilize. Most of them had been dealt with
cruelly, many had been devastated, and thousands of their inhabitants
butchered with all the accompaniments of oriental savagery. These
communities had not been added regularly to the empire to be governed
by satraps or officers making regular reports to the king in Assyria
and receiving instructions from him. If such had been the plan, the
peoples who paid tribute would have been receiving some sort of return
in social order and royal direction for the heavy tribute paid. They
were receiving nothing in return. They had to look to themselves for
protection against the forays of barbarians who inhabited the mountain
passes about them. Such a status was not likely to be permanent. While
their punishment had been too severe for them to venture again to
excite the wrath of such a monarch, they might nourish their wrath and
hope for a better day. Perhaps the next Assyrian king might be a weak
man, and they would be able to throw off the yoke in his day. Meantime,
while Asshurnazirpal held the reins of government, it would be well to
pay the tribute and give no excuse for a raid. But with this quiescence
of the tributary states the employment of his army became a serious
question with Asshurnazirpal. He had made a fighting machine such as
had not been known before. His men had been trained in adversity,
toughened by hard marches, and brutalized by scenes of blood and fire.
He could not disband it, for at once the tribute-paying states,
unterrified by it, would throw off their dependence and the influx of
gold would cease. He could not hold it in idleness, for such an
aggregation of brutal passions would inflame the commonwealth and
disturb the peace. The army would also soon lose its efficiency if
unemployed, for the elaborate modern systems of drill for the
conserving of health and the promotion of discipline were unknown. It
is plain that these men must fight somewhere; but where should it be,
and for what ulterior purpose? Ambition might answer to the king, for
conquest and the extension of Assyrian territory, and greed might urge
to further tribute getting, and commercial enterprise might clamor for
the reopening of old lines of trade to the west through the territory
of the Aramaeans. It was this last which prevailed, though the two
former ideas had their influence and their share in the decision.

It was in the month of April93
of the year 876 that Asshurnazirpal began the great westward movement
in which all his highest endeavors were to culminate. All else had been
but preparation. The first part of his march, across the great
Mesopotamian valley, was little else than a triumphal progress. Every
one of the Aramaean settlements on or near his route to the Euphrates
sent costly tribute, consisting of chariots, horses, silver, gold,
lead, and copper, most of which must be sent back to Calah, while the
king marched on. When the Euphrates was reached it was crossed at its
flood, in boats made of the skins of animals, and the city of Carchemish94 was entered. The
glory of the
city had departed. Once the capital of the great Hittite empire, now
broken in power, it was now merely the center of a small state, of
which Sangara was ruler. His policy was direct and simple. He was
willing to pay down the sum of twenty talents of silver, one hundred
talents of copper, two hundred and fifty talents of iron, along with
chains and beads of gold and much other treasure, if he were simply let
alone. Though deprived of its political influence, Carchemish was now
an important commercial city. War could only destroy its commerce, and
success against the renowned Assyrian conqueror was doubtful, if not
absolutely impossible. National pride counted for nothing. The primary
desire was to get the Assyrians out of the country as soon as possible;
and well might they pay a heavy tribute to gain so great a boon as
that. Neighboring states, fearing invasion and plunder, likewise sent
tribute, and the king could move on farther westward. Crossing the
river Apre (modern Afrin) after a short march, Asshurnazirpal came into
the territory of another small state, called Patin, which was
apparently Aramaean or partially so. The capital of the state was
Kunulua, and the ruler was Lubarna, whose territory extended from the
Apre to the Orontes, and thence over the mountain ridges to the sea
near Eleutheros, with northern and Southern limits not now definable.95 It was a rich
and fertile
country, and might well excite the cupidity of the Assyrian army.
Lubarna offered no resistance to the invader, but was anxious only to
expedite his progress, with presents truly regal in amount and in
magnificence.96
The march
was then southward across the Orontes to the city of Aribua,97 located near the
Sangura
River, which was a southerly outpost of Lubarna. Though Lubarna had so
thoroughly submitted to the Assyrians in hope of getting them out of
the country, Aribua was made an Assyrian outpost, colonists settled in
it, and grain and straw, harvested by force in the lands of the
Lukhuti, were stored in it. Whether the town was to become the capital
of an Assyrian province or merely a base of supplies for possible
hostile operations does not appear. And now there was no one to oppose
the king's march north and west into the green slopes of the Lebanon.
From beneath the historic cedars an Assyrian king again looked out over
the Mediterranean, and with far greater hopes of securing a foothold
there than any of his predecessors had ever had, whether Assyrian or
Babylonian.

While this invasion was in some measure a raid for
booty, it was
more powerfully conceived and better disciplined than the others had
been. When Sargon I had marched hither he passed through lauds scantily
populated with peoples, with whom he had little contact. There was no
possibility of making an empire out of Babylonia and a province on the
far western sea, with vast uncontrolled territories between. When
Tiglathpileser I came out to the same sea he had left great territories
and populous communities between him and the homeland, and, like the
early Babylonian, there could be no hope of making an empire out of two
lands so widely separated. But Asshurnazirpal had measurably changed
the situation. He did not, it is true, actually rule the entire
territory from the Lower Zab and its overhanging hills to the Lebanon,
but he had broken its spirit, and was received as its conqueror. In
many places rule was exercised by governors, both native and Assyrian,
whom he had appointed. In yet others there were towns peopled by
Assyrian colonists, stored with Assyrian provisions, and defended by
massive walls of Assyrian construction. The situation was indeed
changed, and the result of this invasion might well be different.
Asshurnazirpal knew the conditions with which he was confronted, and
fully appreciated the opportunity for making a great empire. The
Mediterranean was even then the basin upon which touched the greatest
empire of the world; and the Egyptians understood the value of their
geographical situation. The Phoenicians were already a powerful
commercial people. The Hebrews formed an important center of influence
in Canaan. What relation should Assyria come to sustain to these powers
of antiquity? An augury of the answer to that question came as
Asshurnazirpal halted on the Lebanon. The people of Tyre, of Sidon, of
Tripolis,98
and of Arvad
sent splendid gifts, a fatal blunder, for it was a confession of
weakness, which would be noted and remembered by the Assyrians. It was
a recognition of the power of the Assyrian arms, of which almost every
Assyrian king boasts in the stereotyped phrase: "By the might of the
terrible arms;" and the Assyrians would bring forth yet greater daring
as they remembered that the commercial rulers of the west feared their
power too greatly to test it. And, worst of all, it was a confession to
the world that these western peoples, who fronted the Mediterranean
cared more for the profits of their commerce than for freedom. We shall
see very shortly the results of this sending of gifts to the Assyrian
king. Asshurnazirpal had achieved his present purpose in this
direction. He did not go down to Tyre or Sidon to look upon the
weaklings who paid tribute without seeing his arms, but turned
northward into the Amanus mountains on an errand of peace. Here he cut
cedar, cypress, and juniper trees and sent the logs off to Assyria.
Somewhere else in the same district he cut other trees, called mekhri
trees, which seem to have been numerous enough to give their name
to the country in which they were found. These were taken back to
Nineveh and offered to Ishtar, the lady of Nineveh.

So ended, in the peaceable gathering of building
materials, a
remarkable campaign. Asshurnazirpal had succeeded brilliantly where his
predecessors had failed. But as the look back over the entire campaign
we can discern significant silence concerning one western people. There
is no allusion to Damascus or to any of its tributary states. They were
all left undisturbed, and a glance at the ma<p reveals how carefully
the Assyrian army had avoided even their outposts. To have attacked
that solidly intrenched state would have been certain disaster, and
Asshurnazirpal was wisely instructed in passing it by. Years must
elapse before the Assyrians should dare attack it.

The campaign was noteworthy also in that there had
been almost no
savagery, no butchering of men, scarcely any ruthless destruction of
cities. This better state of war was of course due to no change of
method on the part of Asshurnazirpal, but simply to the almost entire
absence of resistance. The former campaigns had terrified the world,
and the fruits of severity were an easy conquest and the development of
the peaceful art of building. The burning of cities and the slaughter
of men were resumed in 867 in a small campaign through the lands of
Kummukh, Qurkhi, and the oft-plundered country about Mount Masius. It
was emphatically a campaign of tribute collecting, and the only matters
of any political consequence were the appointment of an Assyrian
governor over the land of Qurkhi and the carrying of about three
thousand captives into Assyria. Such a leavening as that might
influence the Assyrian people.

These renewed ravages ended the wars of
Asshurnazirpal; the
remainder of his reign was devoted to works of peace. But it would be a
mistake to suppose that campaigning had occupied his entire attention
during his reign, for undoubtedly the two chief works of his reign were
executed partially during the very period when he was most busy with
tribute collecting. These works were the rebuilding of the city of
Calah and the construction of a canal. The former was necessary because
the city which Shalmaneser I had built had been deserted during the
period when Asshur was again the capital, and a short period of
desertion always meant ruin to Assyrian buildings. Only the outer
surface of its thick walls was built of burnt brick, the inner filling
being composed of unburnt brick merely, so that a trifling leak in the
roof transformed this interior into a mass of clay, speedily causing
the walls to spring. Judging from the hundreds of references in
Assyrian literature to the restoration of walls and buildings, it may
justly be thought that the Assyrians were especially bad roof builders.
Indeed their advance in constructive skill never kept pace with their
progress in the arts of decoration. It is this anomaly which has left
us without any standing buildings in Assyria, while vast temples still
remain in Egypt. It is, of course, to be observed that Assyrian
construction would doubtless have shown a different development had
stone been abundant as a building material. As an offset to this,
however, it must be remembered that brick is one of the most durable of
materials when properly baked and laid, and that the Assyrians knew how
to bake properly is evidenced by their clay, books, which
have survived fire and breakage and wet during the crash and ruin of
the centuries. Besides the general reconstruction of Calah,
Asshurnazirpal built himself a great palace, covering a space one
hundred and thirty-one yards in length and one hundred and nine in
breadth,99
which remained
a royal residence for centuries. Its massive ruins have been unearthed
at Nimroud, being the northwestern one of the three there discovered.
His second great work was the construction, or reconstruction, of an
aqueduct to bring an abundant supply of water to the city from the
Lower Zab. The river bank was pierced near the modern Negub, and the
water first conveyed through a rock tunnel and then by an open canal to
the great terrace. Its course was lined with palms, with various fruit
trees, and with vineyards, and well was it named Babelat-khigal--the
"bringer of fruitfulness."100

In the year 860 B. C. the reign of Asshurnazirpal
ended in peace. He
had wrought great things for Assyrian power in the world, and the
empire as he left it was greater actually and potentially than it had
ever been before. Of the man himself the world can have no pleasant
memories. No king like him in ferocity had arisen before him, and in
Assyria at least be was followed by none altogether his equal. One
searches the records of his reign and finds seldom anything more than
catalogues of savage and relentless deeds. So rarely indeed does a work
of mercy or peace brighten the record that it is a relief to turn the
page.

CHAPTER V

SHALMANESER II TO ASSHUR-NIRARI II

SHALMANESER II (859-825 B. C.), who succeeded his
father,
Asshurnazirpal, continued his policy without a break, and even extended
it. We are even better instructed concerning his reign, for more
historical material has come down to us from it. The most important of
his inscriptions is a beautiful obelisk of black basalt. The upper
parts of the four faces contain beautifully carved figures of various
animals which the king had received in tribute and as gifts, each
illustration being accompanied by an epigraph explaining its meaning.
The lower parts bear inscriptions recounting in chronological order the
campaigns of the king. There are no less than one hundred and nine
lines of compact writing upon this one monument.101
This story of his wars is supplemented by the fine monolith of the
king, containing his portrait in low relief, covered with one hundred
and fifty-six lines of text102
And this again, in its turn, is supplemented by fragmentary
inscriptions upon bronze plates which once covered massive wooden doors
or gates.103
From these
three main sources of information we are able to follow in order all
the chief events of the king's reign. The accounts, however, are less
picturesque and full of life than those of his predecessor. Campaigns
are often dismissed in a few colorless words, and the record takes on
the nature of a catalogue rather than of a history. We shall therefore
present the story of his reign, not in its chronological but rather in
its logical order, following the circle of his achievements from
country to country. The annalistic style of Asshurnazirpal may stand as
the representative of this reign, with the difference, already
mentioned, that it possesses greater breadth and richer color.

For twenty-six years Shalmaneser led every campaign
in person-an
amazing record. His armies were then sent out under the leadership of
the Tartan Asshur-dayan. Like his father, Shalmaneser was oppressed by
the weight of his own army. It must fight or die, and when there was no
excuse for operations of defense there must be a campaign to collect
tribute, and when that was not needed fresh conquests must be
attempted.

From his father he also inherited the old Aramaean
question, which
was to consume much of his energy through a considerable part of his
reign. We have seen that Asshurnazirpal broke the spirit of the
Aramaeans in the Mesopotamian valley and compelled them to pay tribute
regularly. But, though this was true, it was to be expected that they
would try his successor's mettle at the first opportunity. Of these
states Bit-Adini was still the most powerful as well as the most
daring. We are not told what act of Akhuni, ruler of Bit-Adini, led to
an outbreak of hostilities, but we shall probably not be far wrong if
we ascribe it to the ever-vexing tribute. Whatever the difficulty,
Shalmaneser invaded the country in 859, the first year of his reign,
and captured some of its cities, but apparently did not directly attack
the capital. The invasion had to be repeated in 858 and again in 857,
and in both years there were displays of savagery after the fashion of
Asshurnazirpal. Pyramids of heads were piled up by city gates and the
torch applied to ruined cities. But in the latter year the opposition
to Assyrian domination was hopelessly broken down. The brave little
land was annexed to Assyria, placed under Assyrian government, and
colonists from Assyria were settled in it.104

Such success was likely to lead soon to an attack
upon the larger
and richer Aramaean settlements farther west. The states with which he
would have to deal at first were Hamath, Damascus, and Patin, the small
but fertile and powerful state between the Afrin and the Orontes, which
had given much trouble to his father. Patin was not so powerful as the
other two, but could not be left out of account in a western invasion.
Hamath was the center of Aramaean influence in northern Syria, and
under the leadership of Irkhulina was no mean antagonist. But by far
the most powerful and important of the three states was Damascus, whose
king at this time was Ben-Hadad II. If an enduring union could be
formed between these two states and allies secured in Phoenicia and in
Israel, the peoples of the west might defy even the disciplined and
victorious armies of Assyria. But the ambition of Damascus to be actual
head over all the western territory and mutual jealousies among the
other states prevented any real union against the common oppressor.
However, the threatened advance of Assyria was sufficient to bury for a
time at least their differences and a confederation for mutual defense
was formed for a year, during which time it was a powerful factor in
the history of western Asia.

Shalmaneser II was ready for the attempt on the west
in 854. The
campaign of that year is of such great importance that it will be well
to set it down in the words of the Monolith inscription, with such
further comment as may be necessary to make its meaning clear:

"In the eponymy of Dayan-Asshur, in the month of
Airu, on the
fourteenth day, from Nineveh I departed; I crossed the Tigris; to the
cities of Giammu on the Balikh I approached. The fearfulness of my
lordship (and) the splendor of my powerful arms they feared, and with
their own arms they slew Giammu, their lord. Kitlala and
Til-sha-apli-akhi I entered. My gods, I brought into his temples, I
made a feast in his palaces. The treasury I opened, I saw his wealth;
his goods and his possessions I carried away; to my city Asshur I
brought (them). From Kitlala I departed; to Kar-Shulman-asharid I
approached. In boats of sheepskin I crossed the Euphrates for the
second time in its flood. The tribute of the kings of that side of the
Euphrates, of Saugar of Carchemish, of Kundashpi of Kummukh, of Arame,
the son of Gusi; of Lalli, the Melidoean; of Khayani, son of Gabbar; of
Kalparuda, the Patiuian; of Kalparuda, the Gurgumeean; silver, gold,
lead, copper (and) copper vessels, in the city of Asshur-utir-asbat, on
that side of the Euphrates, which (is) on the river Sagur, which (city)
the Hittites call Pitru, I received. From the Euphrates I departed, to
Khal man I approached. They feared my battle (and) embraced my feet.
Silver and gold I received as their tribute. Sacrifices I offered
before Adad, the god of Khalman (modern Aleppo). From Khalman I
departed; two cities of Irkbulina, the Hamathite, I approached. Adennu,
Mashga, Argana, his royal city, I captured; his booty, goods, the
possessions of his palaces I brought out (and) set fire to his palaces.
From Argana I departed, to Qarqar I approached; Qarqar, his royal city,
I wasted, destroyed; burned with fire. One thousand two hundred
chariots, 1,200 saddle horses, 20,000 men of Dadda-idri (that is,
Ben-Hadad II) of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 saddle horses, 10,000 men
of Irkhulina, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, 10,000 men of Ahab, the
Israelite; 500 men of the Quans;105
1,000 men of Musri; 10 chariots, 10,000 men of the Irkanatians; 200 men
of Matinu-Baal, the Arvadite; 200 men of the Usanatians; 30 chariots,
10,000 of Adunu-Baal, the Shianian; 1,000 camels of Gindibu, the
Arabian; ... 1,000 men of Baasha, son of Rukhubi, the Ammonite-these
twelve kings he took to his assistance; to make battle and war against
me they came. With the exalted power which Asshur, the lord, gave me,
with the powerful arms which Nergal, who goes before me, had granted
me, I fought with them, from Qarqar to Gilzan I accomplished their
defeat. Fourteen thousand of their warriors I slew with arms; like
Adad, I rained a deluge upon them, I strewed hither and yon their
bodies, I filled the face of the ruins with their widespread soldiers,
with arms I made their blood flow. The destruction of the district . .
.; to kill themselves a great mass fled to their graves. . .without
turning back I reached the Orontes. In the midst of this battle their
chariots, saddle horses, (and) their yoke horses I took from them."106

By means of this detailed and explicit account it is
easy to follow
the king's movements and understand the campaign. Shalmaneser leaves
Nineveh and makes straight across the valley for the Balikh. He is here
received with open arms, and secures great gifts. His next important
stop is at Pethor, beyond the Euphrates, where more tribute, brought
long distances, even from the land of Kummukh, is received. From Pethor
to Aleppo the distance was short and the issue was the same--Aleppo
surrendered without a blow. It is interesting to mark that Shalmaneser
localizes in Aleppo the worship of the god. Adad, to whom he paid
worship. If this statement is correct, we may find in it a proof of
early intercourse between Aleppo and Assyria, for we have long since
found Adad worshiped in Assyria. This was the end of the unopposed
royal progress. As soon as he crossed into the territory of the little
kingdom of Hamath he was opposed. Three cities were, however, taken and
left behind in ruins. Shalmaneser II then advanced to Qarqar,107 a city
located near the
Orontes. Here he was met by the allied army collected to defend the
west against Assyria. Its composition throws light on the relative
power of the states in Syria and Palestine and deserves attention. The
main body of the army of defense was contributed by Hamath, Damascus,
and Israel. These three states contributed much more than half of the
entire army and nearly all of the most powerful part of it, the
chariots and horsemen. From the north there came men from Que (eastern
Cilicia) and Musri. From the west came detachments contributed by the
northern Phoenician cities which were unwilling or unable to send
enormous gifts to buy off the conqueror, as 'Pyre and Sidon had done,
but were willing to strike a blow for independence. The last section
was made up of Ammonites and Arabs. This was a formidable array, and
the issue of the battle fought at Qarqar might well be doubted. The
Assyrians had, of course, a well-seasoned army to oppose a crowd of raw
levies; but the latter had the great advantage of a knowledge of the
country as well as the enthusiasm of the fight for home and native
land. Of course the records of Shalmaneser claim a great victory. In
the Monolith inscription108
the allies killed are set down at 14,000, in another inscription the
number given is 20,500,109
while in a third it rises to 25,000.110
The evident uncertainty in the figures makes us doubt somewhat the
clearness of the entire result. There is, as usual, no mention of
Assyrian losses, but they must have been severe. The claim of a great
victory is almost certainly false. A victory for the Assyrians it
probably was, for the allies were plainly defeated and their union for
defense broken up; but, on the other hand, the Assyrians did not
attempt to follow up the victory they claimed, and no word is spoken of
tribute or plunder or of any extension of Assyrian territory.111 The alliance
had saved the
fair land of Hamath for a time and had postponed the day when Israel
should be conquered and carried into captivity. It is a sore pity that
despite the dread of the Assyrians, voiced so frequently by the
Hebrews, and evidently felt by the other allies, mutual jealousy should
have prevented the continuance of an alliance which promised to save
the shores of the Mediterranean for Hebrew and Aramaean civilization.

Shalmaneser was busied elsewhere, as we shall
shortly see, during
the years immediately following, and it was not until 849 that he was
able to make another assault on the west. The point of attack was again
the land of Hamath, and again Ben-Hadad IT of Damascus and Irkhulina of
Hamath had the leadership over the twelve allies. This time Shalmaneser
claims to have slain ten thousand of his enemies, but he mentions no
tribute and no new territory. We may therefore be almost certain that
the victory was rather a defeat, and that he was really compelled to
withdraw. In 846 Shalmaneser once more determined to attack the foe
which had done such wonderful work in opposing the hitherto invincible
Assyrian arms. In this campaign he did not trust merely to his usual
standing army, but levied contingents from the land of Assyria and with
an enormous force, said by him to number 120,000 men, he set out for
Hamath. Again he was opposed by Ben-Hadad IT and his allies, and again
he "accomplished their defeat." But, as in the previous campaigns and
for the same reasons, we are compelled to assert that the Aramaeans had
given full proof of their prowess by resisting the immense Assyrian
army. The next attempt upon the west was made in 842. In this year
Shalmaneser found a very different situation. Ben-Hadad II, who had
ruled with a rod of iron and held the neighboring peoples in terror,
was now dead,112
and the
cruel but weak Hazael reigned in Damascus. Ahab, who was a man of real
courage and of great resources, was dead, as was Joram (852-842), his
successor; and Jehu, the usurper, was now king in Samaria. He seems to
have been a natural coward and did not dare to fight the terrible
Assyrians. The other states which had united in defense under Ben-Hadad
II were hopelessly discordant, each hoping to throw off the
quasi-suzerainty of Damascus. The people of Tyre and Sidon had again
returned to their commerce and were ready to send gifts to Shalmaneser
that they might not be disturbed at the gates of the seas. Jehu sent
costly tribute, apparently in the mad hope of gaining Assyrian aid
against the people of Damascus, whom he bated and feared, not reckoning
that the Assyrians would seek this tribute year after year until the
land should be wasted. This act of Jehu gave the Assyrians their first
hold on Israel, and the consequences were far reaching and disastrous.
Hazael, noble in comparison with all the former allies of Damascus,
determined to resist Shalmaneser alone. In Saniru, or Hermon,113 he fortified
himself and
awaited the Assyrian onslaught. Six thousand of his soldiers were
killed in battle, while one thousand one hundred and twenty-one of his
chariots and four hundred and seventy horses with his camp equipage
were taken. Hazael fled to Damascus and was pursued and besieged by the
Assyrians. But, powerful though he was, Shalmaneser was not able to
take Damascus, and had to content himself with a thoroughly
characteristic conclusion of the campaign. He cut down the trees about
the city, and then marching southward, entered the Hauran, where he
wasted and burned the cities.114
So ended another assault on the much-coveted west, and it was still not
conquered. No such series of rebuffs had ever been received by
Tiglathpileser or by Asshurnazirpal, but Shalmaneser was not deterred
from another and last attempt. In 839 he crossed the Euphrates for the
twenty-first time and marched against the cities of Hazael. He claims
to have captured four of them, but there is no mention of booty, and no
word of any impression upon Damascus.115

Shalmaneser had led six campaigns against the west
with no result
beyond a certain amount of plunder. There was absolutely no recognition
of the supremacy of Assyria. There was no glory for the Assyrian arms.
There was no greater freedom achieved for Assyrian commerce. And yet
some progress had been made toward the great Assyrian ambition. The
western states had felt in some measure the strength of Assyria, those
certainly who sent gifts rather than fight had shown their dread; while
the smoking ruins in the Hauran were a silent object lesson of what
might soon happen to the other western powers which had hitherto
resisted so gallantly. The Assyrian was beating against the bars set up
against his progress, and the outcome was hardly, if at all, doubtful.

Besides his difficulties in the west Shalmaneser had
no lack of
trouble with the far north. As Damascus had a certain preponderance
among the western states, so had Urartu (or Chaldia) among the northern
states. There is some reason for believing that at this time, as was
true later on, Urartu may have tried to exercise some sort of
sovereignty over the land of Nairi. This much, at least, is certain,
that the people of Urartu were the mainspring of much of the rebellion
among the smaller states in the north and west.

The long series of Assyrian assaults on Urartu had
begun in the
reign of Tiglathpileser I, who bad crossed over the Arsanias and
entered the country. Asshurnazirpal, also, had marched through the
southern portion of the district, but had made no attempt to annex it
to Assyria. In the very beginning of his reign, 860 B. C.,116 Shalmaneser
made the first
move which led to this series of campaigns. He entered the land of
Nairi and took the capital city of Khubushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh,
together with one hundred other towns which belonged to the same
country. These were all destroyed by fire. The king of Nairi was then
pursued into the mountains and the land of Urartu (Chaldia) invaded. At
this time Urartu was ruled by Arame, who seems to have been a man of
courage and adroitness. His stronghold of Sugunia was taken and
plundered. Shalmaneser did not push on into the country, but withdrew
southward by way of Lake Van, contented with his booty or too prudent
to risk more. He made no more attempts on Urartu until 857,117 when his
campaigning carried
him westward and northward to Pethor and thence through Anzitene, which
was completely laid waste, and over the Arsanias into Urartu. On this
expedition the country of Dayaeni, along the river Arsanias, was first
conquered and apparently without much opposition. The way was now open
to the capital city, Arzashku. Arame, the king of Urartu, fled further
inland and abandoned his capital to the Assyrians, who wasted it as of
old, and left it a heap of ruins while they pursued the fleeing king.
He was overtaken, and thirty-four hundred of his troops killed, though
Arame himself made good his escape. Laden with heavy spoil, Shalmaneser
returned southward, and, in his own picturesque phrase, trampled on the
country like a wild bull. Pyramids of heads were piled up at the ruined
city gates and men were impaled on stakes. On the mountains an
inscription, with a great image of the conqueror, was set up. The
defeat of Arame seems to have brought his dynasty to an end, for
immediately afterward we find Sarduris I, son of Lutipris, building a
citadel at Van and founding a new kingdom. Shalmaneser returned to
Assyria by way of Arbela. He had therefore completed a half circle in
the north, passing from west to east, but had accomplished little more
than the collection of tribute.118

In the tenth year of his reign (850 B. C.)
Shalmaneser II again
invaded Urartu, this time entering the country from the city of
Carchemish. The only achievement of the expedition was the taking of
the fortified city of Arne and the ravaging of the surrounding country;119 no enduring
results were
effected. More might, perhaps, have been attempted, but the king was
forced to go into the west to meet the people of Damascus, as narrated
above. Shalmaneser never again invaded Urartu in person. In the year
833 he sent an army against it under the leadership of his Tartan
Dayan-Asshur. In the seventeen years which had elapsed since the last
expedition the people of Urartu had been busy. The kingdom of Siduri
(Sarduris I) had waxed strong enough to conquer the territories of
Sukhme and Dayaeni, which for a time had seemed to belong to Assyria
after having been so thoroughly conquered by Shalmaneser II. The
account of the campaign ends in the vain boast of having filled the
plain with the bodies of his warriors.120
The sequel, however, shows that this campaign and another similar one
in 829, under the same leadership, had not really conquered the land of
Urartu.121
Instead of
growing weaker it continued to grow stronger, and we shall often meet
with displays of its power in the later Assyrian history. When the
series of campaigns against the north was finally ended for this reign
it could only be said that in the north and in the west the Assyrian
arms had made little real progress.

In the east also Shalmaneser failed to extend the
boundaries of his
kingdom. His efforts in this quarter began in 859, when he made a short
expedition into the land of Namri,122
which lay on the southwestern border of Media below the Lower Zab
River. Not until 844 was the land again disturbed by invasion. At this
time it was under the rule of a prince, Marduk-shum-udammiq, whose name
points to Babylonian origin. He was driven from the country, and a
prince from the country district of Bit-Khamban, by name Yanzu,123 was put in
his place.124
This move was not very
successful, for the new prince rebelled eight years later and refused
the annual tribute. In 836 Shalmaneser crossed the Lower Zab and again
invaded Namri. Yauzu fled for his life to the mountains, and his
country was laid waste. Shalmaneser, emboldened by this small success,
then marched farther north into the territory of Parsua, where he
received tribute, and then, turning eastward, entered the land of
Media, where several cities were plundered and laid waste. There seems
to have been no attempt made to set up anything like Assyrian rule over
any portion of Media, but only to secure tribute. On the return by way
of the south, near the modern Holwan, Yanzu was taken prisoner and
carried to Assyria.125
But the efforts of Shalmaneser to control in the east, and especially
the northeast, did not end here. The mountains to the northeast of
Assyria had been a thorn in the side of many an Assyrian king. We have
already seen how Shalmaneser at the very beginning of his reign ravaged
and plundered in Khubushkia, on Lake Urumiyeh, farther north than the
land of Namri. In 830 the king himself remained in Calah, sending an
expedition to receive the tribute from the land of Khubushkia. It was
promptly paid, and Dayan-Asshur, who was in command, led his troops
northward into the land of Man,126
which was wasted and burned in the usual fashion. Returning then by the
southern shore of Lake Urumiyeh, several smaller states were plundered,
and finally tribute was collected again in Parsua.127 In the next year (829)
another campaign was directed against Khubushkia to enforce the
collection of tribute, and thence the army marched northward through
Musasir and Urartu, passing around the northern end of Lake Urumiyeh.
Returning southward, Parsua was again harried and the unfortunate land
of Namri invaded. The inhabitants fled to the mountains, leaving all
behind them. In a manner entirely worthy of his royal master the Tartan
laid waste and burned two hundred and fifty villages before he came
back by way of Holwan into Assyrian territory.128
It is not too much to say that all these operations in the northeast,
east, and southeast were unsuccessful. Shalmaneser had not carried the
boundaries of his country beyond those left by Asshurnazirpal in these
directions.

In the south alone did Shalmaneser achieve real
success. The
conditions which prevailed there were exactly fitted to give the
Assyrians an opportunity to interfere, and Shalmaneser was quick to
seize it. In the earlier part of his reign the Babylonian king was
Nabu-aplu-iddin, who after his quarrel with Asshurnazirpal had devoted
himself chiefly to the internal affairs of his kingdom. He made a
treaty of peace with Shalmaneser,129
and all went well between the two kingdoms until Nabu-aplu-iddin died.
His successor was his son, Marduk-nadinshum, against whom his brother,
Marduk-bel-usate, revolted. This rebellion was localized in the
southern part of the kingdom, comprising the powerful land of Kaldi.
The Babylonians had engaged in no war for a long time, and were
entirely unable to cope with the hardy warriors of Kaldi, whom
Mardukbel-usati had at his command. The lawful king, Marduk-nadin-shum,
fearing that Babylon would be overwhelmed by the army which his brother
was bringing against it, resolved upon the suicidal course of inviting
Assyrian intervention. This was in 852, and no appeal could have been
more welcome. Ever since the last period of Assyrian decay the kingdom
of Babylonia had been entirely free of all subjection to Assyria. Here
was an opportunity for reasserting the old protectorate. Shalmaneser
marched into Babylonia in 852, and again in 851, and halted first at
Kutha, where he offered sacrifice, and then entered Babylon to
sacrifice to the great god Marduk, also visiting Borsippa, where he
offered sacrifices to Nabu. It is not to be doubted that by these
presentations of sacrifices Shalmaneser intended not only to show his
piety and devotion to the gods, but also to display himself as the
legitimate overlord of the country. Having paid these honors to the
gods, he then marched down into Chaldea and attacked the rebels. He
took several cities, and completely overcame Marduk-bel-usate and
compelled him to pay tribute. From this time forward until the end of
his reign Marduk-nadin-chum ruled peacefully in Babylon under the
protectorate of Assyria.130
By this campaign the king of Assyria had once more become the real
ruler of Babylonia, the Chaldeans by their inaction acknowledging the
hopelessness of any present rebellion.

We have traced in logical rather than in
chronological order the
campaigns of Shalmaneser from the beginning to the close of the thirty.
first year of his reign. At this point all record of his reign breaks
off, and for the closing years we are confined to the information
derived from the records of his son, Shamshi-Adad IV. There are no more
records of Shalmaneser's doings in the last years of his reign, because
they were too troubled to give any leisure for the erection of such
splendid monuments as those from which our knowledge of his earlier
years has been derived. In the year 827 B. C. there was a rebellion led
by Shalmaneser's own son, Asshur-danin-apli. We know but little of it,
and that little, as already said, derived from the brief notices of it
preserved in the inscriptions of Shamshi-Adad IV. We have no direct
means of learning even the cause of the outbreak. Neither can we find
an explanation of the great strength of the rebels, nor understand its
sudden collapse when apparently it was in the ascendant. Wars of
succession have always been so common in the Orient that, failing any
other explanation, we are probably safe in the suggestion that
Shalmaneser had probably provided by will, or decree, that Shamshi-Adad
should succeed him. Asshur-danin-apli attempted by rebellion to gain
the throne for himself, and the strange thing was that he was followed
in his rebellion by the better part of the kingdom. The capital pity,
Calah, remained faithful to the king, but Nineveh, Asshur, Arbela,
among the older cities and the chief colonies, a total of twenty-seven
cities, joined the forces of Asshur-danin-apli. It is difficult to
account for the strength of this rebellion, unless, perhaps, the leader
of it was really the elder son, and a sense of fairness and justice in
the people overcame their allegiance to their sovereign. The struggle
began in 827, and before the death of Shalmaneser, in 825 B. C., the
kingdom for which he had warred so valiantly had been split into two
discordant parts, of which Shalmaneser was able to hold only the newly
won provinces in the north and west, together with the land of
Babylonia. The old Assyrian homeland was in the band of the rebels, and
all the signs seemed to indicate that Babylonia would soon regain
complete independence and that the Aramaean peoples would be able to
throw off their onerous yoke. After the death of Shalmaneser,
Shamshi-Adad spent two more years in civil war before he was
acknowledged as the legitimate king of Assyria. We do not know what it
was that gave him the victory, but a complete victory it was, and we
hear no more of the rebels or their leader.131

The civil war had brought dire consequences upon the
kingdom which
Asshurnazirpal had made great, and Shalmaneser had held to its
allegiance for thirty-one long years. It was therefore necessary, as
soon as his title to the throne was everywhere recognized, for
Shamshi-Adad to undertake such campaigns as would secure to him the
loyalty of the wavering and doubtful, and would overcome the openly
rebellious or disaffected. His first campaign was directed against the
troublesome lands of Nairi, which may have been planning an uprising to
free themselves from the tribute. Shamshi-Adad entered the land and
received their tribute without being required to strike a blow. He must
have forestalled any organized resistance. The promptness with which
the campaign was undertaken and the completeness of its success make it
seem probable that Shamshi-Adad had had from the beginning the support
of the standing army of Assyria. If this were the case, we can the
better understand how the rebellion against him was put down even when
the greater part of the country had embraced the fortunes of
Asshur-danin-apli, for the commercial classes of Assyria could not
stand against the disciplined, hardened veterans of Shalmaneser. As
soon as the danger in the Nairi lands had been overcome Shamshi-Adad
marched up and down over the entire land of Assyria, "from the city of
Paddira in the Nairi to Kar-Shulmanasharid of the territory of
Carchemish; from Zaddi of the land of Accad to the land of Enzi; from
Aridi to the land of Sukhi,"132
and over the whole territory the people bowed in submission to him.
This is the first instance in Assyrian history of a king's marching
from point to point in his own dominions to receive protestations of
allegiance. It shows clearly to what unrest the land had come during
the civil war.

The second campaign was undertaken chiefly, if not
wholly, for the
collection of tribute. Its course was directed first into the land of
Nairi and thence westward to the Mediterranean. Cities in great numbers
were devastated and burned, and the territory against which Shalmaneser
had so long made war was brought again to feel the Assyrian power.133 The leader in
this campaign
was Mutarris-Asshur.

The third campaign, likewise in search of booty, was
directed
against the east and north. The lands of Khubashkia and Parsua were
crossed, and the journey led thence to the coasts of Lake Urumiyeh, and
then into Media. In Media, as in the other lands, tribute and gifts
were abundantly given. Again the Nairi lands were overrun, and the king
returned to Assyria, assured only that the tribute would be paid as
long as he was able to enforce it.134

In the next year of his reign Shamshi-Adad was
compelled to invade
Babylonia. The years of the Assyrian civil war had given that land the
coveted opportunity to claim independence. Marduknadin-shum had been
succeeded in Babylon by Marduk-balatsu-igbi (about 812 B. C.), though
the exact year of the change is unknown to us. He paid no Assyrian
tribute, and in all things acted as an independent ruler. Against him
ShamshiAdad marched. His course into Babylonia was not down the
Mesopotamian valley, as one might have expected. He went east of the
Tigris along the edge of the mountains. He seems not to have made a
hasty march, for he boasts of having killed three lions and of having
destroyed cities and villages on the way. The river Turnat was crossed
at flood. At Dur-Papsukal, in northern Babylonia, he was met by
Marduk-balatsu-igbi and his allies. The Babylonian army consisted of
Babylonians, Chaldeans, Elamites, Aramaeans, and men of Namri, and was
therefore composed of the peoples who feared the development of Assyria
and were willing to unite against it, even though they were usually
common enemies. Shamshi-Adad claims to have won a great victory, in
which five thousand of his enemies were slain and two thousand taken
captive. One hundred chariots and even the Babylonian royal tent fell
into the hands of the victor.135
We may, however, well doubt whether the victory was so decisive. The
only inscription which we possess of Shamshi-Adad breaks off abruptly
at this point. But the Eponym List shows that in 813 he again invaded
Chaldea, while in 812 he invaded Babylon. These two supplementary
campaigns would seem to indicate that he had not achieved his entire
purpose in the battle of Dur-Papsukal. It is indeed unlikely that he
succeeded in restoring the conditions which prevailed in the reign of
Shalmaneser, though his short reign was, on the whole, successful. If
he had not had the civil war to quell and its consequences to undo, he
might well have made important additions to the territory of Assyria.

Shamshi-Adad was succeeded by his son, Adad-nirari
III (811-783 B.
C), whose long reign was filled with important deeds. Unfortunately,
however, we are not able to follow his campaigns in detail because his
very few fragmentary inscriptions give merely the names of the
countries which he plundered, without giving the order of his marches
or any details of his campaigns. In 806, in 805, and in 797 he made
expeditions to the west in which he claims to have received tribute and
gifts from the land of the Hittites, from Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri,136 Edom, and
Philistia to the
Mediterranean. On this same expedition he besieged Damascus and
received from it great booty. The king of Damascus was Mari; and
Adad-nirari could scarcely have had a greater triumph than the humbling
of the proud state which had marshaled so many allied armies against
the advance of the Assyrians and had then held out single-handed so
long against them. These expeditions to the west accomplished little
more of importance. It was no new thing to receive tribute from the un
warlike merchants of Tyre and Sidon, and the Israelites had long since
become a subject people. Only Edom and Philistia are named as fresh
conquests.

In the northeast also he was brilliantly successful.
The Eponym
Lists mention no less than eight campaigns against the Medes, and the
conquests in this direction carried the king even to the Caspian Sea,
to which no former Assyrian king had penetrated.

In the north he did not get beyond the limits of his
ancestors.
Urartu, which had so strenuously asserted and maintained its rights,
was not disturbed at all, and remained an entirely independent kingdom.

In the south Adad-nirari III was entirely
successful, as he had been
in the west. We have already seen that there was an expedition against
Babylonia in 812, and this was followed in 803 by one against the Sea
Lands about the Persian Gulf. In 796 and 795 Babylonia was again
invaded. One of these campaigns, but which one is uncertain, was
directed against a certain Bau-akhi-iddin, of whose personality or
relation to Babylon we know nothing. He may have been king in Babylon
at this time, or perhaps more probably a rebellious native prince.
Assyrian influence was completely reestablished by these campaigns, and
Babylonia again became practically an Assyrian province. The Assyrian
Synchronistic History, from which we have largely and repeatedly drawn
in the narrative of several previous kings, was edited and compiled at
this time as one of the signs of the emphatic union of the two
peoples.. It was the purpose of Adad-nirari III to blot out completely
the distinctions and differences between them. He even began an
intermixture of their religions. Though the Assyrians had begun their
career as a separate people with the Babylonian religion as then taught
and practiced, the two peoples had diverged through historical
development, and were now in many points quite different in their
religious usages. The Assyrians had introduced other gods, as, for
instance, Asshur, into their pantheon, while the Babylonians, who had
had less contact with the outer world, had made less change.
Adad-nirari III now built in Assyria temples modeled carefully on
Babylonian exemplars and introduced into them the forms of Babylonian
worship with all its ritual. One of the most striking instances of this
policy was the construction in Calah, his capital city, of a great
temple, the counterpart of the temple of Ezida in Borsippa. Into this
was brought from Borsippa the worship of Nabu. The policy, strange as
it was, met with a certain success, for Babylonia disappears almost
wholly for a long time as a separate state and Assyria alone finds
mention.

In connection with this introduction of the worship
of Nabu we get a
single gleam of light upon some of the mythical history of Babylonia.
There has been preserved a statue of Nabu, set up in the temple in
Calah by Adad-nirari III, on the back of which is an inscription137 containing
these words "For
the life of Adad-nirari, king of Assyria, its Lord [that is, of Calah],
and for the life of Sammuramat, the lady of the Palace and its
Mistress." The Dame Sammuramat is plainly the Babylonian form of the
Greek Semiramis. It may be that this Sammuramat is the original of the
Semiramis of the story of Ktesias, though there is no further proof
than the identity of the names-rather a slender basis for so much
conjecture. It has been supposed by some that Sammuramat was the mother
of the king, who ruled as regent during the earlier portion of the
king's reign, for he must have been but little more than a lad when he
became king. Others believe that Semiramis was the wife of the king,
and perhaps a Babylonian princess. Either of these roles would have
given her an opportunity for great deeds out of which the legend
reported by Ktesias might easily grow, but it is impossible, in the
present state of knowledge, to decide between them.138

The reign of Adad-nirari III must be included in any
list of the
greatest reigns of Assyrian history. No Assyrian king before him had
actually ruled over so wide an extent of territory, and none had ever
possessed, in addition to this, so extensive a circle of tribute-paying
states. Though he had done little in the northeast and nothing in the
north, he had immensely increased Assyrian prestige in the west, and in
the south Babylonia, with all its traditions of glory and honor, had
become an integral part of his dominions.

After his reign there comes slowly but surely a
period of strange,
almost inexplicable, decline. Of the next three reigns we have no
single royal inscription, and are confined to the brief notes of the
Eponym Lists. From these we learn too little to enable us to follow the
decline of Assyrian fortunes, but we gain here and there a glimpse of
it, and see also not less vividly the growth of a strong northern power
which should vex Assyrian kings for centuries.

The successor of Adad-nirari III was Shalmaneser III
(782-713), to
whom the Eponym Lists ascribe ten campaigns. Some of these were of
little consequence. One was against the land of Namri, an eastern
tributary country of which we have heard much in previous reigns. It
had probably not paid the regular tribute, which had therefore to be
collected in the presence of an army. No less than six of the campaigns
were directed against the land of Urartu. We know nothing directly of
these campaigns and their results. But the history of a time not very
distant shows that these campaigns were more than the usual
tribute-collecting and plundering expeditions. They were rather the
ineffectual protests of Assyria against the growth of a kingdom which
was now strong enough to prevent any further Assyrian tribute
collecting within its borders, and would soon be able to wrench from
Assyrian control the fair lands of Nairi. A loss so great as that might
well give the Assyrian kings cause for anxiety and for desperate
efforts to hinder the development of the enemy. This loss of tributary
territory in the north had apparently already begun in this reign, but
there were no other losses of territory elsewhere, and the reign ended
with the substantial external integrity of the empire which
Asshurnazirpal had won.

The next king was Asshur-dan III (772-755), in whose
reign the decay
of Assyrian power was rapid, in spite of strenuous efforts to maintain
it, and in spite of success in its maintenance in certain places. In
the year 773, when his reign actually began, though, according to
Assyrian reckoning, 772 was the first official year, he led a campaign
against Damascus. In 772 and again in 755 he marched against Khatarikka
in Syria. These three western campaigns show that, however much Assyria
had lost in the north, it bad not yet given up any claim on the
prosperous lands beyond the Euphrates. And the two invasions of
Babylonia--771 and 767--are evidence of the same facts as regards that
land. Asshur-dan III was plainly endeavoring to hold all that his
fathers had won, but he had as yet undertaken no campaigns against any
new territory. Whatever he may have planned or intended to do in that
way was made impossible by a series of rebellions in Assyrian
territory. The first of these began in 763 in the city of Asshur, the
ancient political and religious center of the kingdom. We do not know
its origin, but the general character of ancient oriental rebellions
and the succession of events which immediately follow in this story
make it seem probable that some pretender had attempted to seize the
throne. The attempt failed for the present and the rebellion was put
down in the same year.

This was shortly followed by another rebellion, also
of unknown
cause, in the province of Arpakha, known to the Greeks as Arrapachitis,139 a territory
on the waters of
the Upper Zab. While a third at Guzanu, in the land of the Khabur, took
place in 759 and 758. These rebellions were signs of the changes that
were impending, and could not long be delayed.

To the superstition of the Assyrians there were
other omens than
defeats and losses in war, which must have seemed to indicate the
approach of troublous days. In 763 the Eponym List records an eclipse
of the sun in the month of Sivan. To the Assyrians this was probably an
event of doubt and concern. To modern students it has been of great
importance, because the astronomical determination has given us a sure
point of departure for Assyrian chronology. In 759 there was a
pestilence, another omen of gloom.

The reign of Asshur-nirari II (754-745) was a period
of peaceful
decadence. In 754 he conducted a campaign against Arpad, and in 749 and
748 there were two expeditions against the land of Namri. With these
expeditions the king made no effort to collect his tribute or to retain
the vast territory which his fathers had won. Year after year the
Eponym List has nothing to record but the phrase "in the country,"
meaning thereby that the king was in Assyria and not absent at the head
of his armies.

In 746 there was an uprising in the city of Calah.
We know nothing
of its origin or progress. But in it Asshur-nirari II disappears and
the next year begins with a new dynasty. In the per. son of
Asshur-nirari II ended the career of the great royal family which had
ruled the fortunes of Assyria for centuries.

CHAPTER VI

THE REIGNS OF TIGLATHPILESER III AND SHALMANESER IV

A MARVELOUS change in Assyria was wrought by the
rebellion of 746 B.
C. Before it there reigned the last king of a dynasty which had made
the kingdom great and its name feared from east to west. A degenerate
son of a distinguished line was he, and the power which had swept with
a force almost resistless over mountain and valley was a useless thing
in his hands. He remained in his royal city while the fairest provinces
were taken away and added to the kingdom of Urartu, and while others
boldly refused to pay tribute and defied his waning army. After 746 B.
C. the Assyrian throne is occupied by a man whose very name before that
time is so obscure and unworthy as to be discarded by its owner. We do
not know the origin of this strange man, for in the pride of later
years he never mentioned either father or mother, who were probably
humble folk not dwelling in kings' houses. He was perhaps an army
commander; an officer who had led some part of the greatest standing
army that the world had then known. He may also have held a civil post
as governor of some province or district. In his career that was now to
begin he displayed both military and civil ability of such high order
that we are almost driven to believe that he had been schooled by
experience in both branches of effort. His reign was not very long, so
that he probably gained the throne comparatively late in life, at a
time when the power of adaptation is less strong than in youth, when
the years of a man's life are devoted rather to the display of powers
already acquired than to the development of new ones. We do not know
whether he set on foot the rebellion which dethroned Asshur-nirari II
or merely turned to his own purposes an uprising brought about by
others. In either case he acted with decision, for he was crowned king
in 745, the next year after the rebellion. He was well known as a man
of resources and of severity, for no rebellion against him arose, and
no pretender dared attempt to drive him from power. He spent no time in
marching through the land to overawe possible opponents, but at once
began operations outside the boundaries of the old kingdom. That he
should dare to leave his capital and his country immediately after his
proclamation shows how sure he was of his own ability, and how
confident that his personal popularity or his reputation for severe
discipline would maintain the peace. Whatever the name of his youth and
manhood may have been be was proclaimed under the name and style of
Tiglathpileser, adopting as his own the name which had been made famous
by the great Assyrian conqueror, whom he emulated in the number and
success of his campaigns, and greatly surpassed in the permanency of
the results obtained. The name of Tiglathpileser would undoubtedly
strengthen him in the popular mind; for it is beyond question that in a
land like Assyria, in which writing, even in the earliest times, was so
constantly practiced, some acquaintance with the history of their kings
was diffused among even the common people. He was plainly not a
descendant of the kings who preceded him, or he would certainly have
followed the usual custom of Assyrian kings and set down the names of
his ancestors with all their titles. He alludes indeed to "the kings,
my fathers,"140
but this
is a boast without meaning when unaccompanied by the names.

There is another proof of his humble origin to be
found in the
contemptuous treatment of his monumental inscriptions by a later king.
Tiglathpileser restored, for his occupancy, the great palace erected by
Shalmaneser H in Calah. Upon the walls of its great rooms he set up
slabs of stone upon which were beautifully engraved inscriptions
recounting the campaigns of his reign. When Esarhaddon came to build
his palace he stripped from the walls these great slabs of
Tiglathpileser that he might use them for his own inscriptions. He
caused his workmen to plane off their edges, so destroying both
beginning and ending of some inscriptions, and purposed then to have
his own records carved upon them. He died without entirely completing
his purpose, or we should have been left almost without annalistic
accounts of the events of the reign of Tiglathpileser. Such treatment
as this was never given to any royal inscriptions before, and we may
justly see in it a slight upon the memory of the great plebeian king.

Were it not for the vandalism of the king Esarhaddon
we should be
admirably supplied with historical material for the reign of
Tiglathpileser. He left behind him no less than three distinct classes
of inscriptions.141
Of
these the first class consist of the stone inscriptions, in which the
events of the reign are narrated in chronological order. These, the
most important of his inscriptions, are in a bad state of preservation
through the mutilations of Esarhaddon. The second class of the
inscriptions, written upon clay, give accounts of the king's campaigns
grouped in geographical order; while the third class, also on clay,
give mere lists of the countries conquered without details of any kind.
If all this abundant material had been as carefully preserved as the
inscriptions of Asshurnazirpal, we should be able to present a clear
view of the entire reign. As it is, questions of order sometimes arise
which render difficult the setting forth of a consecutive narrative.

It was in the month of Airu 745 B. C. that
Tiglathpileser III
(745-727) ascended the throne. As the year had but just begun, this was
counted, contrary to the usual custom, as the first year of the reign.
In the month of September he set out upon his first campaign, which was
directed against Babylonia. In Babylonia there had also been dull days,
while the Assyrian power was dwindling away. After Marduk-balatsu-iqbi
there reigned Bau-akh-iddin, of whom later days seemed to have
preserved no recollection save that he was a contemporary of
Adad-nirari III. If monuments of his reign are still in existence, they
are concealed in the yet unexplored mounds of his country. After him
Babylonia had two, or perhaps even three, kings whose names as well as
their deeds are lost to us. If there had arisen in Babylonia at that
time a king such as the land had seen before, a man of action and of
courage, independence might probably have been achieved without a
struggle. But instead of that the kingdom fell into fresh bondage. The
nomadic Aramaeans, communities of whom had given so much trouble to the
Assyrians, had invaded Babylonia from the south and taken possession of
important cities like Sippar and Dur-Kurigalzu. So powerful and
numerous were they that they threatened to engulf the country and blot
out the civilization of Babylonia. After the loss of two or three names
we come again upon the name of Nabu-shum-ishkun, who reigned, how long
we do not know, in this period of Babylonian decline. He was succeeded
in 747 by Nabu-nasir, commonly known as Nabonassar (747-734 B. C.).
Like his predecessors, he was unable to control the Aramaeans, and when
Tiglathpileser III entered the land he was acclaimed as a deliverer.142 The march of
the new
Assyrian king southward had been a continuous victory. He moved east of
the Tigris along the foothills of the mountains of Elam, conquering
several nomadic tribes such as the Puqudu and the Li'tan. He then
turned westward and attacked Sippar, overcoming its Aramaean intruders,
and doing a like service to Dur-Kurigalzu. He marched south as far as
Nippur and there turned about.143
By this campaign he had so thoroughly disciplined the Aramaean invaders
and overcome all discordant elements that he was able to give a new
order of government and life to the state.

It is a striking commentary on the political and
civil ability of
this extraordinary man that he was able to begin a new order of
administration for subject territory in the first year of his reign,
and as a part of his first campaign. He had reconquered Babylonia as
far south as Nippur, for Babylonian and Assyrian control over it had
practically been lost. He was not satisfied with the payment of a heavy
tribute, but reorganized the whole government of the territory. He
first subdivided it into four provinces, placing Assyrian governors
over them, and then built two cities as administrative centers. The
first of these was called Kar-Asshur, located near the Zab. The name of
the second is not given in the Annals, but it was probably
Dur-Tukulti-apal-esharra.144
These were made royal residences, each being provided with a palace for
the king's occupancy. The second was required to pay the great tribute
of ten talents of gold and one thousand talents of silver. In each the
king set up a monument, with his portrait as a sign of the dominion
which be claimed, and in both people from the other conquered districts
were settled. This plan of planting colonies and of transporting
captives from place to place had indeed been tried on a small scale by
other Assyrian kings, but it had never been adopted as a fixed and
settled policy. From this time onward we shall meet with it frequently.
Tiglathpileser III consistently followed it during his whole reign,
trying thereby to break down national feeling, and to sever local ties
in order that the mighty empire which he founded might be in some
measure homogeneous.

When the Aramaean nomads had been overcome and the
land had received
its new order of government, the king offered sacrifices in Sippar,
Nippur, Babylon, Borsippa, and in other less important cities, to
Marduk, Be], Nabu, and other gods. It was a fruitful year. Never before
had the land of Babylonia been brought into such complete subjection to
Assyria. Nabonassar was a king only in name; the real monarch lived in
Calah. So small indeed is his influence from the Assyrian point of view
that he is not even mentioned in Tiglathpileser's accounts of the
campaign; he is simply ignored as though lie was not. To such sad
contempt had come a man who was nominally king of Babylon. Yet, though
thus despised by the Assyrian overlord, Nabonassar is still called king
by the Babylonians, who held control of the national records. In them
it is still his name and not his conqueror's which stands in the
honored list of Babylon's rulers.

Having thus left affairs in a safe condition in the
south,
Tiglathpileser III next turned his attention to the troublesome lands
east of Assyria. We have already seen how frequently the Assyrian kings
had to invade their territory in order to collect the unwillingly paid
tribute. The first of these lands to be invaded was Namri. The Assyrian
people who lived along their own borders and hence close to Namri had
suffered much from the incursions of half-barbaric hordes which swept
down from the mountains and plundered their crops and other
possessions. These movements in and through Namri made up a situation
similar to that which Tiglathpileser had just settled in Babylonia. The
march through Namri and thence northward through Bit-Zatti,
Bit-Abdadani, Arziah, and other districts to Nishai was marked by ruins
and burning heaps. But the entire campaign was not filled with works of
ruin. The districts of Bit-Sumurzu and Bit-Khamban were added to the
territory of Assyria and received the benefits of Assyrian government.
The city of Nikur, which had been destroyed in the beginning of the
campaign, was entirely rebuilt145
and resettled with colonists brought from other conquered lands. This
became, therefore, a center around which Assyrian influences might
crystallize. The campaign was fruitful in definite results, as the
expeditions of Asshurnazirpal, seeking only plunder, never could be.
The king did not personally enter the heart of Media, but sent an army
under command of Asshur-daninani to punish the tribes south of the
Caspian Sea; but to follow its marches is beyond our present
geographical knowledge.146
A second expedition147
into Media was necessary in 737, when the process of settling colonists
in troublesome districts was further carried out. No such control over
Indo-European inhabitants of the mountain lands of Media was, however,
achieved as had been secured over the Semites of Babylonia, and Media
remained practically independent and ready to give trouble to later
Assyrian kings, and even to have an important share in the breaking up
of the monarchy which was now harrying it.

But if Tiglathpileser was confronted by a difficult
situation in
Babylonia and a more difficult one in Media, and the lands between it
and Assyria, his difficulties may justly be said to have been colossal
when one views the state of affairs in the north. As we have already
seen, the weakness and decadence of Assyria after the reign of
Shalmaneser II had given a great opportunity to Urartu, and kings of
force and ability had arisen in the land to seize it. Of the kings of
Urartu Argistis had taken from Assyria the hard-Ton lands of Dayaeni
and Nirbi, and had overrun, plundering and burning, the whole great
territory lying north of Assyria proper, and as far east as Parsua,
east of Lake Urumiyeh.148

Great though these conquests undoubtedly were, and
dangerous as was
the threat against Assyrian power, they were far surpassed in the reign
of Sarduris II, who succeeded Argistis, while Asshurdan III was
impotently ruling in Assyria. Sarduris broke down and destroyed the
whole circle of tribute-paying states dependent upon Assyria in the
north. His conquests and annexations to the kingdom of Urartu or
Chaldia continued in a westerly direction until he had overrun the most
northern parts of Syria, comprising the territory north of the Taurus
and west of the Euphrates. He even claimed the title of king of
Suri--that is, of Syria. His next move was the formation of an alliance
with Matilu of Agusi, Sulumal of Melid, Tarkhulara of Gurguln,
Kushtashpi of Kummukh, and with several other northern princes, among
them probably Panammu of Sam'al and Pisiris of Carchemish. These
princes probably did not give a willing ear to the solicitations of
Sarduris II, as a neighboring friendly prince, for a defensive alliance
against the encroachments of the powerful Assyrian kingdom, but were
rather forced into such an alliance. Accompanied by these allies,
whether of their own will or not, Sarduris marched against the west.
The inscriptions which have come down to us render it exceedingly
difficult to follow perfectly the movements in this campaign, but the
following is the probable order and meaning of them. At about the same
time of Sarduris's march westward Tiglathpileser also invaded the west,
directing his attack against the city of Arpad--the real key--of the
northern part of Syria. It had belonged to Assyria, as a tribute paying
state, but now actually formed part of the new kingdom of Urartu. If
Tiglathpileser could restore it to his kingdom, be would make a long
step forward in the restoration of Assyrian prestige in all the west.
He besieged the city and could probably have reduced it. Sarduris did
not come directly to its aid, but instead threatened Assyria itself,
and so forced Tiglathpileser to raise the siege and return by forced
marches. On his return he crossed the Euphrates, probably below
Til-Barsip, and he then turned northward. The two armies met in the
southeastern part of Kummukh between Kishtan and Khalpi, and Sarduris
was forced to retire. Tiglathpileser pursued, destroying as be went the
cities of Izzida, Ququsanshu, and Kharbisina, until he reached the
Euphrates north of Amid.149
Here the pursuit ended, for be did not cross the river, whether because
he thought his purpose fully accomplished or because his army was too
weak for the venture we do not know.

The result of this conflict was overpowering, and
its direct
consequences are to be seen in the next three campaigns. From Sarduris
the Assyrians took a great mass of spoil in camp equipage and in costly
stuffs and precious metals, together with a large number of captives.
In the enumeration of these trophies there is probably gross
exaggeration, but there is no reason to doubt the truth of the main
fact that a very great victory was won. The moral effect of it was far
more important than all the gain in treasure. The allies of Sarduris at
once sent presents and tribute to Tiglathpileser, and the entire Syrian
country was once more opened to Assyrian invasion without fear of
opposition from Urartu. There is a curious parallel in all this to the
resistance offered by Damascus and its allies to Shalmaneser II150 As soon as
the alliance
which Ben-Hadad II had formed lost its cohesiveness Syria was speedily
ravaged by Shalmaneser.151
In the latter case a most promising alliance had been formed under the
leadership of Sarduris. If the selfish, commercial interests of the
Phoenicians could have been laid aside, and if the Syrian states had
once more heartily united, the Assyrians would have been easily
overcome and the west saved from all immediate danger of Assyrian
invasion. But these petty unions, which dissolved after the striking of
one blow, were more harmful than useful. By them the Assyrians were
only maddened, and their natural thirst for booty and commercial
expansion increased to a passion. The cities which participated in the
alliances were ruthlessly destroyed in revenge, and fertile countries
laid waste.

In the next year (742 B. C.) Tiglathpileser, free
from all fear of
interference from Urartu,152
undertook the reduction of Arpad. He could make no further gains in
Syria until that city was overcome, for the rich cities along the
Mediterranean could not be expected to fear the Assyrians and to pay
tribute so long as a city smaller in size and nearer to Assyria held
out against the eastern power. We know nothing of the details of the
siege. It was prolonged in a most surprising fashion, for Arpad did not
fall until 740. Our ignorance of the two years' siege probably spares
us the knowledge of barbarous scenes, of the slaughter of helpless
women and children, of the flaying of men alive, and of the impaling of
others on stakes about the city walls. It is not to be supposed that a
city which had so long resisted the great god Asshur and the king whom
he had sent would come off lightly. The fall of Arpad was the signal
for the prompt appearance before Tiglathpileser of messengers from
nearly all the neighboring states with presents of gold and silver, of
ivory, and of purple robes. In the city of Arpad he received these
gifts, and with them the homage of all the west, which would endure any
amount of shame and ignominy, and desired only to be left alone. One
state only sent no presents and offered no homage. Tutammu, king of
Unqi, alone dared to resist Assyria. Unqi was at this time but a small
state probably nearly coterminous with the state of Patin, between the
Afrin and the Orontes.153
Tiglathpileser at once invaded his country and took the capital,
Kinalia, which was utterly destroyed. The defiant king was taken
prisoner, and his little kingdom, provided with Assyrian governors,154 was made a
part of the
Assyrian empire which Tiglathpileser was now forming. This little
episode furnished a new point to the moral of Arpad which would not be
lost on the other states of Syria.

The west had been severely punished and might be
left to meditation
for a time. In 739 Tiglathpileser set out to win back to Assyria a part
of the lands of Nairi which had fallen under the control of Urartu. We
have no accounts of the campaign, and know only that Ulluba and Kilkhi,
two districts of Nairi, were taken. These were not plundered according
to the former fashion, but actually incorporated with Assyria, and
provided with an Assyrian governor, who made his residence in the
lately built city of Asshur-igisha. Another campaign against the same
districts was made in 736 B. C. This carried the conquests up to Mount
Nal, and so to the very borders of Urartu. It is perfectly clear that
both these campaigns were but preparatory to an invasion of Urartu,
which was plainly already planned and soon to be attempted. These two
campaigns were meant only to weaken the southern defenses of Urartu.
Perhaps the king, even in 739 or in 738, would have attempted to follow
up the victories which he had gained but for the breaking out of
rebellions in Syria and along the Phoenician coast. The whole
development of Assyrian policy with reference to Syria and Palestine is
so intensely interesting for many reasons that it is unfortunate that
we are left with such fragmentary lines at the very point in the Annals
where the events of this important year are narrated. We must again
resort to conjecture for the defining of the order of events, though
the main facts are clear enough.

Among the princes and kings who formed a combination
to refuse to
pay Assyrian tribute and to resist its collection by force, if
necessary, Azariah, or Uzziah, of Judah, seems to have been very
influential, if not an actual leader, exercising a sort of hegemony
over the other states of Palestine and Syria. To support him the states
of Hamath, Damascus, Kummukh, Tyre, Gebal, Que, Melid, Carchemish,
Samaria, and others to the total number of nineteen had banded
together. It was certainly a most promising coalition. If the forces
which these states were able to put into the field were brought
together and beaten into warlike shape by a leader of men and a
skillful soldier, there was good reason to hope for an annihilation of
the army of Tiglathpileser. There is no reason to doubt that Uzziah155 (Azariah) was
equal to the
task, colossal though it was, if he had a loyal support from his
allies, and if all would make common cause against their oppressor. We
can only watch and see the end of effectual opposition to Assyria
through the weakness of some members of this alliance. Tiglathpileser
came west, and, passing by the countries of some of the allies, started
southward into Palestine, making as though he would enter Judah and
attack the ringleader, Uzziah, before the allies could effectually
concentrate their forces. As soon as he entered Samaria, Menahem, the
king, threw down his arms and paid to the Assyrians one thousand
talents of silver as a token of his acknowledgment of subjection. We do
not know all the reasons for this move. It may have been necessary in
order to save the land from utter destruction if no assistance could be
secured elsewhere. But it looks at this distance, and on the surface,
like an act of cowardice and a betrayal of the oath of confederation.
The weakness or the blundering, or both, in all these western alliances
becomes more evident in every successive campaign. It might well be
supposed that the dread of national extinction which had been
threatened in every successive Assyrian invasion would have overcome
the weakness, and long use undone the blundering. On the payment of
this tribute Tiglathpileser abandoned the attack on Judah and began to
conquer, probably one by one, the districts which bad joined in the
union for defense. We have no full account of this overwhelming
campaign. One city only, with the name of Kullani, possibly the
biblical Kalneh,156
is
specifically mentioned as being captured, though the extent of
territory actually occupied was so extensive that many must have been
taken. The whole country, from Unqi and Arpad on the one side and
Damascus and the Lebanon on the other, and on to the Mediterranean
coast, was added to Assyrian territory and provided with an Assyrian
governor. In this territory the colonizing plans of Tiglathpileser were
applied on an extensive scale. Into it thirty thousand colonists were
brought from the lands of Ulluba and Kilkbi, conquered in 739, while
thousands were carried out of it to supply the places left vacant by
the exiles. When Tiglathpileser turned his face homeward he carried
with him a heavy treasure, in which were mingled the tributes of
Kushtashpi of Kummukh, Rezin of Damascus, Menahem of Samaria, Hirom of
Tyre, Sibittibi'li of Gebal, Urikki of Que, Pisiris of Carchemish,
Enilu of Hamath, Panammu of Sam'al, Tarkhulara of Gurgum, Sulumal of
Melid, Dadilu of Kask, Uassurme of Tabal, Ushkhitti of Atun, Urballa of
Tukhan, Tukhammi of Ishtunda, Urimmi of Khubishna, and of Queen Zabibi
of Arabia. It is a roll not of honor, but of dishonor, and Uzziah might
well have been proud that his name does not appear upon it. Capacity
and courage, with some national spirit and patriotism, in even a few of
these might have saved the country, or at least postponed the evil day
of its undoing.

While these events were happening in the west the
policy of
Tiglathpileser was receiving in the east signal proofs of its wisdom.
Among the Aramaeans east of the Tigris certain communities rose in
rebellion against Assyria. Under the old regime such an uprising near
the capital would have caused the liveliest concern. The king would
have hurried home from his labors in the west and himself have quelled
the rebellion. But Tiglathpileser had provided the rudiments of a
system of provincial government. We have already seen how ready he was
at the very beginning of his reign to set up provincial governors with
powers of administration over certain definite districts, and with
force sufficient to maintain order. They were now responsible for the
maintenance of the portion of the empire under their immediate control,
and well they knew that they would be held to a strict accounting for
their work. On the old method perhaps all that he had gained in the
west would have been lost and all the work would have had to be begun
again. In this instance, however, the Assyrian governors of Lullume and
of Nairi, at the heads of armies, invaded the rebellious district and
put down the uprising with the utmost severity. When this was
accomplished there was another display of colonizing activity on a
colossal scale. From these turbulent districts men were deported and
settled at Kinalia, the capital of Unqi, while others were settled in
various parts of the new province of Syria.157

In 735 the time had fully come for the effort to
break down the
kingdom of Urartu (Chaldia). We have seen how carefully this campaign
was planned, and how Tiglathpileser worked up to it. Unfortunately the
Annals are not preserved in which the story of the campaign was told,
and we must rely again upon the looser statements of his other
inscriptions. With very little opposition Tiglathpileser penetrated the
country up to the gates of the capital city, Turuspa (Van). Here the
people of Urartu struck a blow, but were defeated and forced to
withdraw within the walls. Tiglathpileser began a siege, but could not
reduce the city because he had no navy with which to attack or blockade
on the lake side, and so could not starve it into submission. It was
also so well fortified on the land side that he was unable to carry it
by assault. While engaged in the siege he sent an army through the
country, which made its way as far as Mount Birdashu, the location of
which is not known. This expedition destroyed a number of cities on the
Euphrates and plundered the inhabitants.

After some ineffectual fighting about the capital
Tiglathpileser
raised the siege and departed. He had not succeeded in adding the
kingdom of Urartu to Assyria, but he had broken its spirit, and we hear
no more of its power and defiance for some years. The gain to
Tiglathpileser by the campaign was the removing of all danger of a
flank movement from the north when he was engaged in carrying out his
plans in the west, where his work was still unfinished. In 734 we find
him again on the shores of the Mediterranean, having probably crossed
the plains of Syria near Damascus and gone straight to the coast, which
he followed southward. He had no fear of an attack in the rear from
Tyre and Sidon, busily absorbed in sending out their merchant ships. It
appears probable that the first city attacked was Ashdod or Ekron,
which was easily taken, and then Gaza was approached. The king of Gaza
at this time was Hanno (Khanunu), who had no desire to meet the
Assyrian conqueror, and therefore fled to Egypt, leaving the city to
stand if it were attacked. He hoped to secure the help of the Egyptians
in opposing the Assyrian advance. Again selfishness interfered with the
placing of a stone in the way of Assyrian progress. If the Egyptians
had had any wise conception of the situation in western Asia at this
period, they would have seen that the very highest self-interest
demanded the giving of help to the weak city of Gaza. Gaza was the last
fortified city on the way to Egypt from the north. It would serve well
as a place for the defense of the Egyptian borders, for who could say,
after the events of the past few years, when Tiglathpileser III would
plan to attack Egypt? Indeed who could say that this man who planned so
far in advance of events had not already purposed an invasion of the
land of the Nile? One by one the coalitions formed against him in Syria
had been broken down. A wise policy in Egypt would have aided these
combinations in order to keep a buffer state, or a series of them,
between Egypt and the ever-widening power of Assyria. It was too late
for that. All but Judah were paying a regular tribute to Assyria. The
last outpost on the coast-the city of Gaza was now threatened. It was
surely well to make a stand here, and it would probably have been easy
to inspire in Judah, or even in Damascus and Hamath, the enthusiasm for
another attempt against the Assyrians. But Gaza was foolishly left to
its fate, and that was easy to foresee. The city was taken; its goods
and its gods were taken away to Assyria. In its royal palace
Tiglathpileser set up his throne and his image in stone in token of
another land added to Assyria. A native prince was appointed as a
puppet king, whose chief concern must have been the collection of the
heavy annual tribute for Assyria. The worship of the god Asshur was
introduced along with that of the other gods native to the place.158 One only of
the methods of
Tiglathpileser for the engrafting of a new state into his empire seems
not to have been exhibited--there was no colonization. The capture of
Gaza seems but a small result for the campaigns of a year, for the
taking of Ashkelon and Ekron, with places like Ri'raba, Ri'sisu,
Gal'za, and Abilakka, can scarcely be counted as of much moment. In
reality, however, the place was a very important outpost for Assyria.
It would have been important for Egypt in the cause of defense, it was
no less important for Assyria in the cause of offense, and we shall see
shortly that it was thus used, and very effectively.

Tiglathpileser had now disposed of the seacoast, and
would be ready
and free to attend to the reduction of the inland hill country of
Palestine, which he had long been coveting. His plans had been well
laid, and thus far admirably executed. He might safely have hoped for
complete success as the direct result of his own prudence and skill,
and without external assistance of any kind. But assistance he was to
have through the tactless blundering of those who ought to have opposed
him. Affairs were now in a very different state in Palestine from that
in which they had been when his last attempt had been made, and Uzziah
offered a manly and almost successful resistance. Uzziah had died in
736, and his son, Jotham, had ruled only two pitiful years and then
left a weakened kingdom to Ahaz, who was only a boy when he ascended
the throne. It would have been no difficult task for Pekah, king of
Samaria, and Rezin, king of Damascus, to have shown him the need of a
new alliance against Assyria.

We have paused often before over these diminishing
opportunities for
union against Assyria. It is well for the entire understanding of the
situation that we pause again at this point. Ahaz was a weakling--of
that the sequel leaves no doubt whatever; but he was also stiff-necked
and unwilling to take counsel, however excellent. The wisdom of the
prophet Isaiah, who was also an acute statesman, was lost on him. But
in the nature of the case a man who, like him, gave little heed to the
religion of Jehovah would be less likely to listen to a prophet's words
than to the words of foreign kings. His introduction of the manners,
customs, and worship of foreign nations shows how open he was to
outside influences.159
Coward though he was personally, he was king of a land with great
resources for defensive war, as Uzziah had sufficiently shown. The way
was again open for alliances which should include at least Damascus,
Israel, and Judah. But the people of Damascus and of Israel were blind
to all these opportunities, and saw only an opportunity for present
personal gain. Menahem was dead, or his previous experience with
Tiglathpileser might have restrained his people from folly. His son,
Pekahiah, was also dead, after a reign of only two years, and a
usurper, Pekah, was on the throne in Samaria. Rezin still reigned in
Damascus. These two saw in the youth and inexperience of Ahaz a chance
for revenge upon Judah and the enrichment of their own kingdoms. They
united their forces and invaded Judah. So began the Syro-Ephraimitic
war. They marched apparently south on the east side of Jordan, and
first took Elath,160
which Uzziah had added to the kingdom of Judah, and so greatly
increased its commercial prosperity. From Elath they went northward,
intending to attack Jerusalem itself and overcome Judah at the very
center.

The situation was a terrible one for Ahaz. He would
never be able to
hold out single-handed against such foes. To whom should he turn for
help? There was no help in Egypt, for Egypt had not extended help to
Hanno, and was now absorbed in a life-and-death struggle with Ethiopia.
There was an Assyrian party at his court which urged him to lean upon
Tiglathpileser. His wisest counselor was Isaiah, but Isaiah he would
not hear, and so he sent an embassy to meet Tiglatbpileser and sue for
help against the Syro-Ephraimitic combination. To get the necessary
gifts for the winning of favor he stripped the temple and emptied his
own treasure-house.161
We
do not know where the embassy met the Assyrian, though it was probably
at some point in Syria. The gifts were presented, and Tiglathpileser at
once promised his help to Ahaz. It is a marvelous story of blindness,
folly, and mismanagement on the one side and of almost fiendish wisdom
and cunning on the other. All these plans of Damascus and Israel to
plunder and divide Judah had played into the hands of Assyria. As soon
as Tiglathpileser offered his first threat against Damascus and Israel
the two allies left Judah and went northward. The danger to Jerusalem
was therefore ended for the time, but the trouble for the rest of the
country was only begun. The troops of Damascus and Israel were not
withdrawn from Judah in order to oppose Tiglathpileser with united
front, but each army withdrew into its own territory, there to await
the pleasure of Tiglathpileser. He decided to attack Samaria first, and
in 733 the attempt was made. Tiglathpileser came down the seacoast past
the tributary states of Tyre and Sidon, and turned into the plain of
Esdraelon above Carmel. His own accounts fail us at this point, but the
biblical narrative fills up the gap by the statement that he took Ijon,
AbelBeth-Ma'aka, Janoah, Qedesh, and Hazor, together with Gilead,
Galilee, and the whole land of Naphtali.162
It might be expected that he would now attack Samaria itself and
perhaps slay the king. He was relieved of this by a party of assassins
who slew Pekah, and then presented Hoshea to be made king in his place
and to be subject to him.163

This completed the subjection of Israel, and
Tiglathpileser was now
able to turn to the far greater task of overcoming Damascus. Rezin was
not discomfited by the conquest of Israel, and trusted that the army of
Damascus, which had so glorious a record of bravery and victory, might
triumph again. He met Tiglathpileser on the field of battle and was
defeated, escaping very narrowly himself. The only thing that remained
was to shut himself up in Damascus and withstand the siege if possible.
He was soon beleaguered, with the most terrible devastation of the
entire country about Damascus. Tiglathpileser boasts that he destroyed
at this time five hundred and ninety-one cities, whose inhabitants,
numbering thousands, were carried away, with all their possessions, to
Assyria. At about the same time, and very prob. ably during the
progress of the tedious siege, Tiglathpileser sent an army into
northern Arabia. A queen of Arabia, Zabibi, had paid him tribute in
738, but since then we have no hint that he received anything more.
Samsi was now queen, and she refused to pay any tribute and retired
before the army, attempting to entice the Assyrians into the heart of
the country. When at last she was overtaken and forced to fight the
Assyrians were victorious; Samsi was conquered and plundered of vast
numbers of camels and oxen. An Assyrian governor was then left to watch
her payment of tribute, though she was permitted to manage her own
kingdom as she willed. The effect of this victory was almost magical.
From nearly the entire land of Arabia even as far south as the kingdom
of the Saboeans deputations came bearing costly gifts for
Tiglathpileser. This expedition produced little of permanent value for
the Assyrian empire, but was for the time, at least, a means of adding
to the imperial income. At the same time tribute was received from
Ashkelon, as a sign that that hardy little state desired good relations
with the conqueror.

At last, about the end of 732, Damascus fell into
the hands of
Tiglathpileser III, and the last hope of the west was gone. Rezin was
killed by his conqueror.164
Tiglathpileser sat up his throne in the city which had so long and so
bravely, although with so much unwisdom, withstood him and his
predecessors. Well might he make merry within its walls, and receive
royal honors and imperial homage at the end of so long and bitter a
struggle. Ahaz of Judah came and visited him there, paying honor to the
foreign conqueror who had indeed saved him from Syria and Israel, but
whose people could never rest satisfied while Judah was only a
tribute-paying dependency and not actually a part of the empire. It is
probable that other princes also paid him honor here, as they had done
before. Tiglathpileser had no need to invade the west again. He had
carried the borders of Assyria far beyond any of his predecessors in
that direction. By his colonizing methods he had begun the assimilation
of divers populations into one common whole. He had extended the field
of operations for Assyrian commerce all the way across Mesopotamia and
Syria to the Phoenician cities. Had his people been native to the
seacoast, he might have undertaken to snatch the commerce of the
Mediterranean. But there was no need for that in his time. Some
problems and difficulties must be left for the future to solve. While
this long series of campaigns was in progress in the west Babylonia was
first peaceful and then disturbed. In one sense the Assyrian
protectorate, while it oppressed the native sense of dignity and
independence, was a great blessing. It delivered the people from the
need of a great standing army, and gave them a sense of security
without it. The reign of Nabonassar was an age of literary activity,
especially manifested in the study of history and chronology,165 and the
leisure for such
study was won by Assyrian arms. In estimating the reign of
Tiglathpileser this must not be left out of the account.

With the end of the reign of Nabonassar, in 733, the
period of peace
abruptly closed, if, indeed, there had not been disturbances before
that time. He was succeeded by his son, Nabu-nadinzer (733-732), who
was slain by a usurper, Nabushum-ukin, in the second year of his reign.
It was at this time that Tiglathpileser was most deeply absorbed in
delicate and difficult operations in the west. It was impossible for
him to leave to other hands the conduct of the siege of Damascus, or
the direction of the important, though subsidiary, expeditions in
Palestine and Arabia. For a season Babylonia must be left to its own
resources; which offered an opportunity to the traditional enemies of
Babylonia, the Chaldeans, or Aramaeans. The union of tribes made a
successful attack on the country when Nabu-shum-akin had reigned only
about one month. Nabu-shum-ukin was deposed, and in his place Ukinzer,
a Chaldean prince of the state of Bit-Amukkani, was made king. This was
in 732, and Tiglathpileser was still in camp before Damascus. With the
accession of Ukinzer, Babylonian unrest almost became a frenzy. There
was a traditional hatred of the Chaldeans, and they were now masters in
the land, and their hand was not light in ruling. It is therefore not
surprising that the priests, who were great landed proprietors, and the
wealthier classes in general, who were despoiled of property by their
new and hungry rulers, should have longed for the intervention of
Tiglathpileser. Weary of the constant disturbances in the south, he
decided to invade the land in 731, and make an end of the disturbances
by giving to the people a new form of government with more perfect
supervision. In his progress through the land he met first with the
tribe of Silani, whose king, Nabu-ushabshi, shut himself up in his
capital, Sarrabani. The Assyrians took the city and destroyed it.
Nabu-ushabshi was impaled in front of it as a warning to rebels, while
his wife, his children, and his gods, with fifty-five thousand people,
were carried into captivity.166
The cities of Tarbasu and Yabullu were next utterly wasted, and thirty
thousand of their inhabitants, with all their possessions, were carried
away. The next victim in this bitter campaign was Zakiru, of the tribe
of Sha'alli, who was carried in chains to Assyria, while his whole land
was laid waste as though a storm of wind and wave had passed over it.167

The way was now open for an attack upon the real
object of the
expedition. Ukinzer had left Babylon and fled to the confines of his
own tribe of Amukkani, where he shut himself up in his old capital of
Sapia. If Tiglathpileser expected him to surrender on demand, he was
mistaken. Ukinzer prepared for a siege. The season was now probably
late, as much time had been spent on the preliminary conquests, and
there was not time to reduce the city by regular siege. Tiglathpileser
therefore contented himself for this year with destroying the palm
gardens about the city, leaving not one tree standing, and with wasting
all the smaller cities and villages in the environs.168

While this process of pacification was going on
other Chaldean
princes were filled with fear lest their punishment should come next,
and began to take steps to set themselves right with Tiglathpileser. Of
these Balasu (Belesys), the chief of the Dakkuri, sent gold, silver,
and precious stones, as did also Nadin of Larak. But the most important
of these was Merodach-baladan, of the tribe of Yakin, king of the
country of the Sea Lands, close to the Persian Gulf. He had never
before given any form of submission to any Assyrian king, but now came,
apparently in person, to Sapia and presented an immense gift of gold,
precious stones, choice woods, embroidered robes, together with cattle
and sheep.169
Great
though his submission was, the end was not yet with the family of
Merodach-baladan.

In the year 730 there are no events to record, but
in 729
Tiglathpileser was again in Babylonia, and this time was able to take
the stronghold of Sapia. Ukinzer was deposed, and the unrest of
Babylonia was terminated. And now the plans which Tiglathpileser must
have made years before could be fully carried out. He was determined to
make an end of the ruling of Babylonia by native princes and instead
govern it himself directly by making himself king. He instituted
festivals in the principal Babylonian cities in honor of the great
gods. In Babylon he offered sacrifices to Marduk, at Borsippa to Nabu,
at Kutha to Nergal; while other offerings less magnificent were made in
Kish, Nippur, Ur, and Sippar. He then, in Babylon, performed the great
ceremony of taking the hands of Marduk.170
By this act he was received as the son of the god and as the legitimate
king of Babylon. On New Year's Day of the year 728 lie was proclaimed
king in the ancient city of Hammurabi. At Babylon he was crowned under
the name of Pulu (Poros in the Ptolemaic canon), but whether he had
borne this name before or bad now adopted it in order that by change of
name the Babylonians might be spared living under the name of
Tiglathpileser=an Assyrian conqueror-is not known to us. This move of
accepting the crown of Babylon had a great advantage and an equally
great disadvantage. It would act as an effectual bar to the Chaldeans,
who would not dare another outbreak while the Assyrian king was king of
Babylon, with his overpowering military forces in or about the city or
within easy reach. On the other hand, this crowning involved a very
great difficulty. It must be renewed every year; every year must the
hands of Marduk be taken. This might be almost impossible, for if there
was a great insurrection at any point in the king's dominions, he would
have to leave the seat of war at the time appointed and hasten to
Babylon for the performance of the symbolic rite. It was not possible
to transfer the capital of the empire to Babylon, for the Assyrians
would have felt themselves dishonored by any such plan. Tiglathpileser
must have felt sure of the stability of the empire and of the peace
which he had won by the sword, or he would never have taken upon
himself the burden of the crown of Babylon. In the next year, 727, he
again performed the required rites and was again pro. claimed king in
Babylon. He had reached the very summit of the earthly magnificence of
his age, and attained the goal coveted by the kings of Assyria before
him. He was not only king of Sumer and Accad, but also king of Babylon.

We have no knowledge of any other important events
in his reign. It
was almost wholly a reign of war and conquest. We know of only one
building operation, the reconstruction and improvement in Hittite style
of the palace in Calah, which he occupied during most of his life, and
which had been built by Shalmaneser II. In the month of Tebet of the
year 727 the great king died.171

It is difficult to estimate calmly and judiciously
his reign or his
character. He had come to the throne out of a rebellion. He found
himself in possession of a small kingdom with tribute-paying
dependencies, many in a state of unrest or of open rebellion. The name
of Assyria had been made a dread and a terror among the nations by
raids of almost unexampled butchery and destructiveness, but it was now
not feared as before. Weak kings had been unable to hold together the
fragile fabric which kings great in war, though not in administration,
had built up. He made this small kingdom a unit, freeing it entirely
from all semblance of rebellion or insurrection. He reconquered the
tribute-paying countries, and then, by a master stroke of policy, but
weakly attempted in certain places before, he made them integral parts
of an empire. In every true sense he was the creator of the Assyrian
empire out of a kingdom and a few dependencies. He made Assyria a world
power, knitting province to province by unparalleled colonizing, and
transforming local into imperial sentiment. No king like him even in
war had arisen in Assyria before, and in organization and
administration he so far excelled them all as to be beyond comparison.

In an inscription written the year before his death
he sums up the
record of his empire building by the declaration that he ruled from the
Persian Gulf in the south to Bikui in the east, and along the sea of
the setting sun unto Egypt, and exhibits the same extent of territory
in the titles which he wears, for he was then king of Kishshati, king
of Assyria, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Accad, king of the Four
Quarters of the Earth. In him were thus united the titles which carried
back the thought of man to the very earliest centers of civilization in
the Southland, to the kingdoms which had been made great by Gudea and
Hammurabi, along with those which were linked with all the story of the
north. In the face of a record like this none may grudge him the titles
of "great king" and "powerful king." The usurper had far outstripped
men born to the purple.

In the very month172
in which Tiglathpileser III died he was succeeded by Shalmaneser IV,
who, if not his son, must have been his legal heir to the succession,
or the change could not have been so quickly made. No historical
inscriptions173of
his
reign have come down to us, and we have, therefore, very imperfect
knowledge of its events, especially as the Eponym List, which has so
often before helped us to make out the order of events in the reigns,
is broken off at this place. The Babylonian Chronicle sets down in the
year of his accession, that is, in 727, the destruction of a city,
Shamara'in or Shabara'in, the biblical Sibraim,174
located between Hainath and Damascus. If this be true, we may well ask
what had brought Shalmaneser so quickly after his succession into the
western country. Unfortunately we do not possess his version of the
story, and must derive our knowledge from his enemies, among whom the
Hebrews have left us an explicit and convincing account of his chief
movements.

It will be necessary before proceeding further with
the narrative of
Shalmaneser's movements to fasten attention for a time upon the lands
of Palestine and Egypt. When Hoshea became king of Samaria in 733-2,
during the reign of Tiglathpileser III, he accepted the post as a
subject of the Assyrian monarch, and was bound in every possible way to
maintain peace. There is no reason to doubt that he remained faithful
to Tiglathpileser till the great monarch died. When the change of
rulers came in Assyria we may also look for disturbances among the
subject states. We have learned from frequent instances that the
western states accepted the domination of Assyria only at the point of
the sword. They hated the conquering destructive monarchs, and yielded
only when they were crushed. We have also learned that the populations
subject to Assyria were always hoping for an opportunity to free
themselves from the galling yoke, and we have seen in several instances
that they commonly chose as an opportunity the change of rulers in
Assyria. But Tiglathpileser III had introduced a new sort of conquest
and an entirely new form of administrative policy, and it was not to be
expected that the opportunity for rebellion would be so great at the
end of his reign as it had been before. His conquests were less
destructive, less bloody, than those, for example, of Asshurnazirpal,
and hence the wounds which they made in the sensibilities of a people
were less deep and angry. But further and more important than this, he
not only conquered, he ruled. Provinces were not plundered and then,
after being commanded to pay an annual tribute, left to themselves.
They were provided with Assyrian governors, who could watch every
movement of the subject populations, and so scent the very first sign
of rebellion or of conspiracy looking to it. When any people had been
so conquered and so administered during a king's reign they were not
able easily to make a confederation when his death occurred. This was a
very different situation from that which tribute-paying states had
previously known. If rebellions at the change of kings were now
generally less likely to occur, still more were they unlikely in
Palestine, and of the land of Palestine they were in no country so
improbable as in Israel. For by far the larger and better part of the
kingdom was absolutely administered and ruled by Assyrians, and in part
populated by colonists. The kingdom which was permitted to retain the
semblance of autonomy extended but a short distance around the capital
city. There was no inherent likelihood of any outbreak in Samaria, or
any effort to win back again the old independence, when Tiglathpileser
III died, and in the selfsame month Shalmaneser IV succeeded him.

But there was another land in the west in which
great changes had
come and new aspirations, along with new fears, had arisen. In Egypt
with the year 728 there began to reign the twenty-fifth, or Ethiopian,
dynasty. The Ethiopians had really governed Egypt since about 775, when
Piankhi made good his suzerainty by conquest. But from 775 to 728 the
Ethiopian kings had been content to exercise their supremacy over the
land while they suffered the native princes of Egypt to retain their
nominal sway. They were content to receive the homage and tribute of
these petty princes, leaving to them the internal administration of the
country, but watching carefully lest any combination might be formed to
threaten their real rule. There were probably numerous attempts to
achieve liberty again, but they were successfully put down. At last a
native Egyptian prince, called by the Egyptians king, and reigning at
Memphis under the name of Bakenrenf, the Bokkhoris of the Greeks, was
deposed and killed by Shabaka of Ethiopia, who now took into his own
hands the rule over the combined kingdoms of Ethiopia and Egypt. After
this change in the dynasty in Egypt there are numerous signs that a
great reawakening of the people of the ancient country of the Nile
begins. At last they seem to have seen that the progress of Assyria
must finally threaten themselves; that it could not stop at the
southern limits of Palestine, but must ultimately, and none could say
how soon, cross into Egypt. Furthermore, the Egyptians were beginning
to long for a restoration of their power over the great Asiatic
provinces as it had been in the golden days of Thotmosis III and
Rameses II. The Ethiopian kings in Egypt had a difficult task in ruling
as overlords over the princes in the Delta and elsewhere, who had once
been free. What could do more to reconcile Egypt to the new order of
affairs than a movement against the common foe of all the west or a
campaign to recover the long-lost Asiatic provinces?

As we have seen above, it was altogether improbable
that Israel
would dare single-handed to break faith with the Assyrians, but if
there was some hope of aid from the Egyptians, the case was altogether
different. The people of Israel could not be expected to know fully the
internal affairs of Egypt so as to understand the essential weakness of
the country as an ally. They could readily know the greatness of the
Egyptian empire, in which Upper and Lower Egypt were combined with the
rich and prosperous kingdom of Ethiopia. They might well be acquainted
with the glorious history of Egypt, with its great conquests and
successful wars in the past. They could hardly, on the other hand, be
expected to know of the weakness of the country at present, of the
unsettled strife between the Ethiopian emperor and the princes of
native blood; of the local jealousies and petty provincial strifes; of
official corruption; and of the insolent avarice of the priestly class.
Instead of Egypt's being an important and valuable ally it was in
reality a very weak one, and a little later may be shown to be a cause
of weakness rather than strength to her Syrian allies. None of these
things were apparently known to Hoshea. Induced by some representations
made to him, or through the direct holding out of the Egyptian hand, he
sent messengers to Sibe,175
who was probably an under-king of Shabaka, and entered into some sort
of alliance with him. He now felt strong enough to omit the payment of
the annual tribute to Assyria, which he had paid "year upon year." This
implies that he had paid it at least two years before it was
omitted-that is, in 727 and 726.

Now it has already appeared that Shalmaneser IV was
in Syria, or at
least an army of his, in the accession year, 727. A natural way of
paying the tribute, and a very common one, was to the Assyrian army
when it was near at hand. This Hoshea seems to have done in 727, and
again in 726. In 725, relying on the help of Egypt, he rebelled and
refused the annual payment of tribute. At once Shalmaneser IV invades
Samaria with an army to reduce this incipient fire of rebellion, which,
uncontrolled, might involve the whole of his valuable Syrian
possessions in flames. Hoshea was altogether disappointed in his
expectation of help from Egypt and was left to meet his fate alone. The
reserve of the biblical sources has told us nothing of the efforts of
Hoshea against the forces of the Assyrians. From the order of the
narrative we are probably justified in the inference that he left his
capital with an army to meet the advance of the forces of Shalmaneser.
He was, however, overwhelmed, captured, and probably taken to Assyria.
Shalmaneser had now an open way to the city of Samaria, which he had
determined to destroy as the penalty for its rebellion. The execution
of this plan was not so easy as the conquest and capture of the king.
Samaria prepared for a siege. There is something heroic in the very
thought. It was surrounded and hemmed in by territory over which it had
once ruled in undisputed sway, but which had long been controlled by
Assyrian governors and filled with Assyrian colonists. As Shalmaneser
advanced closer he would, of course, destroy and lay waste everything
about the city which might have furnished any aid or comfort to it.
From the villages and towns thus destroyed the people would flock into
the capital until it was crowded. The people of Samaria may have hoped
for help from Egypt, watching with sick hearts for signs of an
approaching army of succor. They knew what surrender meant in the loss
of their city, and in probable deportation to strange lands. They were
fighting to the bitter end for homes and for life. So they resisted-and
the story is amazing--for three long years.176
The king of Assyria died, and still Samaria held out, and would not
surrender. It makes one think what might have been if there had been
such courage in Israel in the days of Menahem. Shalmaneser IV died in
722 and left Samaria unconquered, and hence all Syria in jeopardy to
his successor. If a weak man should take his place now, all that had
been won by Tiglathpileser III might be lost.

We have no further knowledge of any events in the
reign of
Shalmaneser IV. It is true that Josephus177
has preserved an account of an expedition of his against Tyre, which he
had taken from Menander. According to his story a certain Elulaeus,
king of Tyre, had rebelled, and Shalmaneser came to besiege the city.
He was, however, unable to reduce it after a five years' siege. We have
no allusion to any such siege in any of the inscription material which
we possess, and it is altogether probable that Josephus has made a
mistake and ascribed to Shalmaneser a siege of Tyre which was really
made by Sennacherib. If he had really besieged Tyre and left this siege
also as an inheritance to his successor, we should almost certainly
find it mentioned in the abundant historical material of the next
reign.

It is impossible properly to estimate the character
or deeds of
Shalmaneser from the scanty historical materials which we possess. His
reign of only five years was entirely too short for any great
undertakings. He undoubtedly left to his successor more problems than
he had solved himself.

CHAPTER VII

THE REIGN OF SARGON II

SHALMANESER IV died in the month of Tebet, and in
the very same
month Sargon II (721-705 B. C.)178
became king of Assyria. Like Tiglathpileser III, he was not of royal
blood. In no single passage does he ever claim descent from any of the
previous kings, nor in any way allude to his parentage. His son,
Sennacherib, who succeeded him, is also silent concerning the origin of
Sargon, but his grandson, Esarhaddon, provides him with an artificial
genealogy which carries back his line to Bel-bani, an ancient king of
Asshur. It is a striking fact that he was able to put himself so
quickly and so securely on the throne, and it makes one think that
there may have been some understanding before the death of Shalmaneser
by which Sargon was made the legal heir. On the other hand, he may have
been a successful general, as we have already supposed that
Tiglathpileser III was, and so had in his hand a weapon ready to
enforce his ambitious claims to the throne. Like Tiglathpileser, also,
he must have been well known as a man of force, for there was no
uprising against him, and he was at once recognized as the lawful king.

He inherited a kingdom full of great problems and
difficulties.
Samaria was not yet taken, and if it should succeed in effectual
resistance, all Syria would take new heart, and the whole fabric which
Tiglathpileser III had laboriously built up, but had not had time fully
to cement together, would be in fragments. This was a not improbable
outcome, for Egypt was eager to foment disturbance in the southern part
of the land, hoping thereby to gain back some of the territory which
had been lost. On the north there was also a disturbing center.
Tiglathpileser had not been able to finish the partition of Urartu, and
that state would be very willing to incite the northern Syro-Phcenician
states to rebel when rulers were changed in Assyria, in the hope of
building up again the kingdom which Tiglathpileser had broken in
pieces. In Babylonia also the death of Shalmaneser had given
opportunity for a sudden outbreak of new efforts among the Chaldeans.
It was indeed a troublesome age on which Sargon had lighted. A man of
great energy and ability would alone be able to meet the dangers and
solve them. Such a man was Sargon. Like Tiglathpileser III, he was a
usurper. It is an eloquent witness to the resources of Assyria that two
such men were produced so close to each other, and not of a royal
house, with inherited strength and ability.

We are well supplied with inscriptions179
setting forth the chief events of Sargon's reign, and have only to
follow the plain indications of the Annals in order to see them all in
proper sequence.

In the year of the accession of Sargon (722 B. C.)
Samaria fell, but
it is improbable that he had anything to do with it in person. He could
scarcely have been present so quickly, leaving behind him all the
possible dangers to the throne which he had just ascended. It was a
most fortunate result for his reign that Samaria was taken without a
longer siege. Very probably the same army which had invested the city
secured also its surrender. Neither the army nor the inhabitants of
Samaria are likely to have known anything of the change of rulers in
Assyria. The biblical account does not mention the name of the king of
Assyria into whose hands the city fell, but the form of statement seems
to imply that Shalmaneser was still considered king.180 Sargon was not yet known in
the west as he would later come to be. As soon as Samaria was taken he
gave orders that the colonizing plans which Tiglathpileser III had
devised and perfected should be carried out on a large scale. From the
city there were taken away twenty-seven thousand two hundred and ninety
men, who were settled in the Median mountains and in the province of
Gozan (Guzanu) along the rivers Balikh and Khabur. To supply their
places colonists were brought from Kutha, in Babylonia, and recently
conquered territories. The people carried away from Samaria were
probably of the very best blood in the land -the men who had fought for
three weary years against the most powerful military state of western
Asia. They were probably officials, skilled laborers, and trades
people. The loss to the land was irreparable, and the kingdom of Israel
never regained the strength it had lost. There was another little spasm
of rebellion in a short time, as we shall see, but the land had not
left in it the national life to sustain another such struggle. So did
the Assyrians in the reign of Sargon finish the task which they began
in the reign of Shalmaneser II181
Over the land of Samaria Sargon set Assyrian governors, and the once
glorious and powerful kingdom of Israel became an insignificant
Assyrian province.

There were greater problems in Babylonia for Sargon
than the west
had yet offered. We have seen182
how in 729 Merodach-baladan, of the tribe of Bit-Yakin, king of the Sea
Lands, had paid homage to Tiglathpileser III and made costly gifts in
token of his subjection. That was well enough when Tiglathpileser III
was threatening to destroy the entire land, but Merodach-baladan
intended only to maintain his allegiance to Assyria so long as the
Assyrians were able to compel it. During the short reign of Shalmaneser
no effort seems to have been made by the Chaldeans, but it is quite
probable that all the while the preparations were going on. When
Shalmaneser died, and Sargon was busy in Assyria and unable to proceed
to Babylon to take the hands of Marduk, Merodach-baladan judged that
the hour had come. Without great difficulty he took southern Babylonia,
the ancient kingdom of Sumer and Accad, and then the city of Babylon
itself. On New Year's Day, 721, he was proclaimed king of Babylon.183 Here was
opened again the
same old question as to the ruler in Babylon. Sargon never could lose
the great southern kingdom without a bitter war. Merodach-baladan had
thrown down the gage, and there was no alternative but to take it up.
Sargon entered Babylonia and was met at Dur-ilu by an army under the
command of Merodach-baladan, with Khumbanigash of Elam as an ally.
According to the usual custom, Sargon claimed a victory.184 It is,
however, perfectly
clear from the issue that Sargon had not been successful. He left
Merodach-baladan in absolute possession of Babylon, not attempting at
all to enter the country farther, but contenting himself with the
possession of the extreme northern portion, which joined with the land
of Assyria. On the other hand, Merodach-baladan did not attempt to
drive the Assyrians out of this northern part, but was quite satisfied
to be left in possession of the city of Babylon, in which there were
wealth and power enough to satisfy his ambitions, and difficulties
enough with the priesthood to engage his best powers. The failure to
retake Babylon was a bad beginning for the reign of Sargon. The
Assyrians would have less confidence in his prowess; the Chaldeans
would have time and opportunity to strengthen them. selves in their
hold on Babylon; the men of Urartu and of Syria would learn of it, and
would judge that the king of Assyria was not equal to his predecessors.
Rebellions all over the empire lie latent in this failure of Sargon.

The first rebellion that confronted Sargon was in
the west, where
one might have thought that the punishment of Samaria would have
deterred others from a new attempt. But the Syrian states had not all
been so thoroughly blotted out as Samaria, and there was a nucleus in
Hamath around which a conspiracy might crystallize. Hamath, one of the
oldest cities in Syria, had never been destroyed or even engrafted into
the Assyrian empire. This was due to the constant exercise of a crafty
policy. Hamath had joined in rebellions, but always withdrew at the
right moment, paid tribute, and played the part of a faithful ally of
Assyria. It owed its deliverance in the reign of Tiglathpileser III
only to this policy pursued by its king, Eni-el. But this craftiness,
while it saved the state for a time, was unpopular, and Eni-el fell a
victim to his own prudence, and was removed from the throne by a
national party. A usurper named Il-ubidi,185
or Ya-ubidi, succeeded him and at once began a new policy. In this he
was aided by Hanno (Khanunu) of Gaza, whom we have learned to know
before in the reign of Tiglathpileser III. The Egyptians did not give
him aid at the time when Gaza might have been saved from the Assyrians,
but he was now in better favor in Egypt, and was an ally of Sibe. It is
most likely that he was trying in the interests of Egypt to gain a hold
over Hamath, and that he did get some direct influence is shown by his
title of king of Hamath in one of Sargon's texts-to the Assyrians he
evidently appeared as the real ruler of the state. II-ubidi and Hanno
at once formed a new confederation, in which Arpad, Simirra, Damascus,
and, most surprising of all, Samaria joined.

It would appear from this that even the loss of so
many of her best
men and the watchful eye of an Assyrian governor were not able to crush
every aspiration for liberty. Judah remained faithful to Assyria, and
did not join with the confederates. 11-ubidi made Qarqar his fortress,
and placed a large army in the field. This was now no mean opposition
which confronted Sargon, and after his practical defeat in Babylonia it
was likely to have hopes of successfully opposing him. At the outset he
displayed one quality of great importance; he set out promptly for
Syria as soon as news of the rebellion reached him, determined to
strike the first member of the alliance before the others could unite
and come to his support. This Assyrian promptness had often before cost
the Syrian states great losses. It fell out in this case exactly as he
had planned. At Qarqar he met Ya-ubidi and his army without any of the
allies and gained a complete victory. When this was done he made haste
to meet Hanno and Sibe, who were the real leaders of the rebellion. At
Rapikhu (Raphia) the Assyrians met the confederates and completely
defeated them.186
Sibe
managed to get off with his life and escaped into Egypt; Hanno was
taken prisoner and carried off to Assyria. This made peace in Syria for
a time; Sibe was not able to undertake any more disturbances, and the
remaining confederates needed time for recuperation. The result of this
campaign as affecting Assyria was very important. The prestige of
Sargon personally was restored, and he was left free, following the
example of Tiglathpileser III, to set right the affairs of his empire
in other border countries.

Of all these Urartu was the most dangerous and
threatening. Sargon
had planned to reach its destruction by slow and steady approaches. He
would first restore to Assyria, as tribute-paying states, the
communities which surrounded Urartu on the west, south, and east, and
then finally strike the all-important blow. His first movement was from
the east against the two cities of Shuandakhul and Durdukka, situated
in the territory belonging to Irauzu of Man, by Lake Urumiyeh. These
renounced their allegiance, and received help from Mit'atti of Zigirtu,187 whose
territory probably
immediately joined. Sargon quickly defeated them and destroyed the
cities (719 B. C.), but did not attempt any punishment of Mit'atti at
this time.188
In the same
year the three cities, Sukia, Bala, and Abitikna, whose exact location
is unknown, though they also adjoined Urartu, were destroyed and their
inhabitants transplanted to Syria.189
A similar campaign occupied the year 718, directed against the western
rather than the eastern approaches to Urartu. Kiakki of Shinukhtu, a
district of Tabal (Kappadokia), had not paid his tribute. He with many
of his followers was transplanted into Assyria, and his land delivered
over to Matti of Atun (called Tun190
by Tiglathpileser III), who was required to pay a higher annual tribute.191

The year 717 was not, perhaps, of so great
importance as many
another which preceded and which followed it in Assyrian history, but
it was a year of great interest in one way at least, as it ended the
career of Carchemish. Alone of all the smaller states into which the
great Hittite empire had broken up it had maintained a sort of
independence, paying only an annual tribute. The king of Carchemish at
this time was Pisiris, who is even called king of the land of the
Hittites,192
as though
retaining in his person something of the glory of the old empire. If he
had continued to pay his annual tribute, he would probably have been
permitted to remain in undisturbed possession of his high-sounding
title and in the free exercise of his authority over the internal
affairs of his kingdom. In an evil hour he incited Mita of Mushke to
join him in a rebellion against the payment of tribute. He was speedily
overcome, and at once, with his family and his followers, transported
into Assyria. With them Sargon carried away as booty eleven talents of
gold, twenty-one hundred talents of silver, and fifty chariots of war.
Carchemish was repeopled with Assyrian colonists and became an Assyrian
province.193
In such an
easy manner ended the very last remnant of a once powerful empire,
which had defied even Egypt at the zenith of its power.

In the salve year the cities Papa and Lallukna,
probably located
near Urartu, joined in a rebellion, but were overcome and their
inhabitants transplanted to Damascus.194
Year after year did Sargon, as we have already seen, continue these
colonizations in Syria. He was determined to disturb so thoroughly the
national life that there might be no opportunity for any further
uprisings. After all this intermixture it becomes less surprising that
the Jews who returned from Babylon would not recognize the people of
Samaria as their fellows,195
but looked on them as a strange race, and called them Samaritans, and
not Hebrews.

At last, in 716, Sargon felt himself strong enough
and the way well
enough prepared to make a sharper attack on Urartu, and not merely on
the states which surrounded it. He was moved to a more active policy by
the threatening doings of the king of Urartu. Sarduris, who had opposed
Tiglathpileser III so successfully as regards the actual land of
Urartu, was now dead, and in his place ruled Ursa, as the Assyrian
inscriptions usually name him,196
or Rusas, as he is known to native historiographers. As early as 719
Urartu was intriguing against the small kingdom of Man, of which Iranzu
was king, and Sargon had to save to Man two cities which Mit'atti of
Zigirtu, a tool of Urartu, had seized. That was a warning to Urartu for
a time. But now Iranzu was dead and the usual troubles over the
succession in small states of the Orient offered an opportunity to
Urartu. The lawful heir to the throne of Man was Aza, son of the last
king, and he finally did get himself seated. But Rusas then stirred up
against him the old enemy of his father, Mit'atti of Zigirtu, and also
the lands of Misianda and Umildish, the latter of which was ruled by a
prince, Bagdatti. To these three allies were added some governors out
of Rusas's own territory, and all things were ready for a successful
attack on the little kingdom. Aza had given pledges of faithfulness to
Assyria, and so deserved support. He was soon overcome and slain, and
his land would have been speedily divided among the conspirators, with
the lion's share for Rusas, had not Sargon suddenly appeared. Bagdatti
of Umildish was captured and slain, as a warning, on the same spot
where Aza had been killed. Ullusunu, brother of Aza, was put on the
throne and confirmed in possession. In this Sargon had defeated the
immediate plans of Rusas, but he was very far from having destroyed his
influence. Scarcely was Sargon's back turned when Ullusunu broke his
Assyrian vows and transferred his allegiance to Urartu, actually giving
up to Rusas twenty-two villages of his domain. We do not know what led
to this reversal on the part of Ullusunu, but it is probable that he
was forced into the act. Besides this Ullusunu induced Asshur-li' of
Karalla and Itti of Allabra, two small territories of western Media, to
renounce the suzerainty of Assyria and accept that of Urartu.197

Here was an upturning indeed which might be imitated
by other
states. Sargon increased his army and returned in haste. Upon his
approach Ullusunu fled to the mountains, leaving his capital, Izirtu,
to the tender mercies of the enraged Sargon. The capital was soon
taken, as well as Zibia and Arma'id, two fortified cities. Izirtu was
burned and the others suffered to remain.198
Ullusunu, probably seeing no way of escape even in mountain fastnesses,
returned and sued for pardon. Astonishing as it may seem, this was
actually granted, and he was once more installed in his kingdom-which
confirms us in the belief that Sargon had come to think that he had not
been a free agent in his rebellion, but had been compelled to it by
Rusas. On the other hand, the two rebels who had joined with him
suffered severely for their faithlessness. Asshur-li' of Karalla was
slain, his people deported to Hamath, and his land turned into an
Assyrian province. Itti of Allabra and his family were also deported
into Hamath, and a new vassal king was set up in his place.199 At the same
time the
district of Nikshamma and the city of Shurgadia, whose governor,
Shepa-sharru, had rebelled, were reduced and added to the Assyrian
province of Parshua.200
In this year Sargon also invaded western Media and conquered the
governor of Kishesim, whose Assyrian name, Bel-shar-usur, probably
points backward to the influence of Tiglathpileser III in this same
region. Kishesim was thoroughly changed in every particular. Assyrian
worship was introduced, the name of the city changed to Kar-Nabu, and a
statue of Sargon set up.201
A new province was then formed of the districts of Bit-Sagbat,
Bit-Khirmani, Bit-Umargi, and of several other cities, and Kar-Nabu was
made its capital.202
Another city, by the name of Kharkhar, whose governor had been driven
out by its populace, was similarly treated. Its name was changed to
Kar-Sharrukin (Sargon's-burg), and it was colonized with captives and
also made the capital of a newly formed province.203 This sort of campaigning had
its influence on the surrounding country. From city to city spread the
news of the mighty conqueror and of his sweeping changes, and from
different parts of Media no less than twenty-eight native princes came
to Kar-Sharrukin with presents to Sargon, hoping to purchase
deliverance from like treatment.204

This year bad been full of various undertakings, but
nearly all of
them may be said to deal directly or indirectly with Rusas of Urartu,
who, even while these easterly undertakings were in progress, was not
idle. Defeated in his plan of securing peacefully from Ullusunu the
twenty-two villages which had been granted him, as we have seen, but
afterward recovered by Sargon, he took them by force. This brought
Sargon back in 715 with an army which quickly recaptured the lost
territory, which was then supplied with special Assyrian governors.
Daiukku, a subordinate governor of Ullusunu, who had yielded to the
solicitations of Rusas, was carried off to Hamath.205 The suddenness and
completeness of this victory induced Yanzu of Nairi to bring his homage
to Sargon.206
Meanwhile
the province of Kharkhar, which was formed but a year before, had
rebelled and must be again conquered. It was now increased in size by
the addition of territory which had been thoroughly Assyrianized, and
the city of Dur-Sharrukin was heavily fortified as an outpost against
the land of Media. In this year twenty-two Median princes offered
presents to Sargon207
and
promised an annual tribute of horses. All these campaigns weakened the
influence of Rusas over his allies, and so the way was gradually
preparing for his overthrow; but the time had not come this year, for
Sargon had disturbances to settle in the west.

Mita of Mushke had interfered with Que (Cilicia),
and had taken from
it several cities to add to his own dominion, which were readily
restored.208

An expedition into Arabia was also rendered
necessary for the
collection of tribute. The tribe of Khaiapa, which had paid tribute
since the reign of Tiglathpileser III, now refused to do so, and was
supported by the tribes of Tamud, Ibadidi, and Marsiani. Of these
Khaiapa was probably the most northerly, being settled about Medina,
while the others stretched southward below Mecca.209 These were all conquered
easily and restored to subjection. It'amar of Saba, Pir'u (Pharaoh) of
Egypt, who may have been Bokkhoris, and Samsi, the queen of Arabia,
whose dominions were in the extreme northern part of the country, all
sent gifts.210
This
latter part of the year probably was of great value to the king in the
revenue which it yielded.

In the next year (714) the campaign against Rusas of
Urartu was
taken up in earnest. The invasion began from the east, Sargon first
appearing in Man, where Ullusunu paid him tribute, while Dalta of
Ellipi sent presents all the way from the southeastern borders of
Media. From Man Sargon advanced slowly and steadily into the
territories of Zigirtu, where Mit'atti was still holding sway. One by
one the cities and fortified camps were taken until Parda, the capital,
fell into Assyrian hands. When this had happened Mit'atti and his
entire people moved swiftly in one great emigration out of the country
and were seen no more. They had probably come out of the steppes of
Russia into this favored district, and now returned to their old home.
The army was now ready to attack Rusas, who came on to meet it. In the
first engagement he was defeated and fled.211
Sargon did not pursue at once, but waited to make sure of the land
which was now deserted by the people of Urartu. The land of Man was
entirely covered in marches, that every sign of disloyalty might be
rooted out, and was then given over to Ullusunu. One more land must be
ravaged before Rusas could be reached and overcome. This was Muzazir,
which Shalmaneser II had attacked in 829 B. C., whose prince, Urzana,
had acknowledged the overlordship of Rusas. It was a hard mountain
march to reach it, but the city, forsaken by Urzana, was soon taken
when once it was gained.212
The southern portion of Urartu was then invaded. Cities were burned and
dug up and the entire land turned into a howling wilderness, and robbed
of every hope of any further autonomy. Rusas looked on, perhaps, from
some mountain eyrie and saw the utter collapse of his fortunes. The
kingdom which his fathers had founded, of whom he was no unworthy
follower, was being divided among Assyrian states or added directly to
the provinces of the empire. For him there was no further hope, and he
sought peace in a self-inflicted death.213

Rusas left a son who succeeded his father as king of
Urartu, or
Chaldia, as the country was called by its own people, with the title of
Argistis II. He found only a small kingdom left for him to rule, about
Lake Van and the upper waters of the Euphrates. Long and sturdily had
Urartu withstood the progress of Assyria in war, while it,
nevertheless, accepted Assyrian civilization and even adopted the
cumbersome Assyrian method of cuneiform writing. The Chaldians had even
formed an empire and contested the supremacy- of western Asia with the
Assyrians. In the days of Assyrian weakness they had grown stronger,
until the menace to Sargon was so great that he had to plan cautiously
and act decisively during a long series of years for its removal. He
had now stripped them of all their southern and western possessions and
shut up the king amid his mountain fastnesses, from which he would soon
venture out to plunder and raid, but without hope of ever again
mastering so large a portion of western Asia. Sargon's slowly maturing
plans had effectually removed the greatest barrier to his country's
career of conquest, extension, and aggrandizement.

For the next three years Sargon was unable to carry
out any great
schemes of conquest, because he was absorbed in smaller undertakings
intended to complete the pacification of the north and west. The first
of these was in western Media, where the province which had taken the
place of the old kingdom of Karalla rose in rebellion, and, having
driven out the Assyrian governor, set up as king Amitasshi, a brother
of the old king, Asshur-li. The new arrangement lasted but a short
time, for Sargon soon ended the rebellion. The vassal kings, Ullusunu
of Man, Dalta of Ellipi, and Ninib-aplu-iddin of Allabra, all sent
their tribute to the triumphant Sargon.

In the northwest, also, Sargon had a very dis.
agreeable task. The
land of Tabal had been conquered by Tiglathpileser III and the king
deposed. In his place Tiglathpileser set up a man of humble origin,
named Khulle. Bound by ties of gratitude or of necessity, Khulle paid
his annual tribute until his death and remained faithful to the
Assyrians, who had made him what he was. Sargon trusted him as fully as
Tiglathpileser, and even added to his dominion the territory of
Bit-Burutash. When he died his son, Ambaridi, or Ambaris,214 was confirmed
by Sargon as
king in his stead. So completely was he trusted that Khilakki (Cilicia)
was further added to his territory and Sargon's own daughter was given
him to wife.215
In spite
of all this he was secretly, and later publicly, faithless to Assyria,
and joined the coalition of Rusas and Mita, to whom he gave aid in
their various undertakings against Assyria. His day of punishment had
now arrived. His land was devastated, colonized, and then made into a
new province of the empire,216
and he, with his followers, was carried off to Assyria.

In the following year (712) a very similar case
occurred in the
district of Meliddu. While Sargon was busily engaged in war Tarkbunazi
of Meliddu conquered Gunzinanu of Kammanu (Comana), one of Sargon's
tributaries, and seized his territory. This had been done in reliance
upon the help of Urartu. Sargon now overran the land and destroyed the
capital, Melid. Tarkhunazi for a time defended himself in a fortress,
Tulgarimme, but was taken, and, together with his troops, deported to
Assyria.217
His territory
was then divided. Melid was annexed to Kummukh,218
while the rest of the country was repopulated and formed into a new
province.219
One more
year was required before this northern territory was fully reduced to
subjection. In 711 there was an uprising in Gurgum, a small Hittite
state. The king, Tarkbulara, was killed by his own son, Muttallu, who
thus made himself ruler. Sargon soon appeared with a small body of
troops, and carried off Muttallu with his followers to Assyria. His
land was likewise made into a province.

While Sargon was engaged in these petty but annoying
wars with small
states Egypt was again plotting to gain some kind of foothold in
Palestine. Ashdod was now chosen as the starting point for another
effort. In this city Sargon had removed the king, Azuri, for failure to
pay tribute, and had set up his brother, Akhimiti, in his stead. Under
the leadership of a man named Yaman, or Yatnani,220
who was plainly inspired from Egypt, a rebellion began in which
Akhimiti lost his life. By some means Philistia, Moab, Edom, and, most
surprising of all, Judah were drawn into this new opposition to
Assyria. Hezekiah was now king of Judah, and in this fresh union with
Egypt he was flying in the teeth of the advice and warnings of Isaiah,
his ablest counselor. Sargon felt the importance of this new uprising,
and at once hastened either himself or by deputy, in the person of his
Tartan,221
to end the
rebellion. Ashdod, Gath, and Ashdudimmu were easily occupied by the
Assyrians. The other states of Palestine seem to have feared to join in
the war when it was on, and Egypt sent no help. The inhabitants of
these cities were carried away and other captives settled in their
places.222
This campaign
so thoroughly stamped out all opposition in the west that it might for
a time safely be left to itself.

If now we look back over Sargon's reign up to this
point, we shall
see that his only direct gains to Assyrian territory had been in the
land of Urartu. To Shalmaneser rather than to him belongs the credit of
securing Samaria. Indirectly, however, his gains had been great. He had
greatly strengthened the Assyrian control from east to west over a wide
circle of country, and had so established the outposts of the empire
that he might feel safe from invasion. It must be remembered, however,
that he was even yet governing a territory much smaller than that which
Tiglathpileser III and Shalmaneser IV had controlled. Babylonia was
still in the possession of the Chaldeans, and Sargon was bereft of the
rarest and most honored title -king of Babylon. But he was not
satisfied with this state of affairs, and had probably planned long and
carefully in order to its complete overthrow. Now that his borders were
safe on the north and west, and the annual tribute over the great
empire was fairly well assured, the time seemed to have arrived for his
greatest work.

When Sargon, in 721, after the battle of Durilu,
left
Merodach-baladan to rule undisturbed in Babylon he took upon himself a
great risk. There was a grave possibility that the adroit Chaldean
might so establish himself in the kingdom that the Assyrians could
never hope to dislodge him again. But Sargon builded very wisely in
this, for there were more causes for discontent in Babylonia than of
satisfaction, and Merodach-baladan was much more likely to ruin his
prospects of a peaceable reign than to improve them. His status was
peculiar and dangerous. He never could have conquered Babylon in the
sole reliance upon his own Chaldean forces, but was compelled to
utilize not only Elamite but also Aramaean allies, the latter being the
same half-nomad tribes which had been a disturbing factor in former
times. So long as he was threatened by Assyrian armies Merodach.
baladan was able to hold together these ill-assorted followers;
self-preservation against a common enemy who might blot them out one at
a time made them cautious. But as soon as all danger from Assyria was
withdrawn by Sargon's occupation in other quarters these Elamites and
Aramaeans began to clamor for a share in the spoil of Babylonia. They
had not ventured all in the service of Merodach-baladan without a well
founded hope of participation in the wealth which the centuries had
heaped up. Merodach-baladan was not to be suffered to wear the title of
king of Babylon while his followers, who had suffered that he might win
it, lay in poverty. It would be impossible to satisfy these men with
anything short of a license for free plunder, and this could not be
given without the ruining of the land over which he hoped to rule.
Beside this Merodach-baladan could not give ever so little to his
Chaldeans and Elamites without raising bitter opposition to his rule
among the native Babylonians, and especially among the
priesthood--perhaps the wealthiest class in the country.

In these opposing wishes there was abundant material
for a flame of
civil war which would destroy the ambitions of the new king of Babylon,
and for this Sargon had left the land free. Merodach-baladan probably
desired earnestly to strengthen his position in Babylonia with the
natives by a reign of order and peace, leaving them in undisturbed
possession of their estates. This was, however, impossible, and he
ventured on a career of plunder. Property holders were removed from
Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, and Borsippa into Chaldea, where they were
held in some kind of bondage, while their lands and other wealth were
handed over to colonists out of the number of Merodach-baladan's
rapacious and unthinking allies.223
This policy satisfied neither party to the compact, and
Merodach-baladan found himself surrounded on every side by enemies when
he sadly needed friends. The Babylonians were always a fickle folk at
best, and apparently delighted in changes of dynasty. A restless spirit
was ascribed to them, centuries after, in the Mohammedan period, and
their history as we have followed it to this point seems clearly to
show that they were of this temper now.224
Nevertheless, they valued highly their ancient institutions and held in
high esteem the honor of their royal titles. The priesthood must always
be a conservative force in any community, and the Babylonian priesthood
in charge of the worship of Marduk, and so invested with the power of
making kings, who must take hold of the hands of the god, maintained
with enthusiasm the ancient customs. At this time they found less of
sympathy among the Chaldeans, Aramaeans and Elamites than among the
Assyrians. Tiglathpileser III had so greatly valued the priests and the
honors which they had to bestow that he twice visited Babylon in order
to take the hands of the god and be proclaimed king, and Shalmaneser IV
had even more than followed his example. Sargon might well be expected
to have similar ideas and hopes. To him, therefore, the Babylonian
priesthood and all the other wealthy classes which had lost home or
possessions looked as a possible deliverer from the barbarous Chaldeans
and Elamites.

Sargon was therefore doubly prepared for an attack
on
Merodach-baladan. He had made his own empire so strong and safe that he
might leave it without fear, and he was certain of a friendly reception
from the Babylonians. His plan was first to conquer the allies of
Merodach-baladan and then to strike the defenseless Chaldean himself.
An army was sent southward to overcome the Aramaeans living along the
Elamite and Babylonian borders. These were speedily conquered. The
Gambuli and the Aramaean tribes of Ru'a, Khindaru, Yatburu, and Puqudu
were organized into a new Assyrian province, with Dur-Nabu, formerly
known as Dur-Atkhara, one of Merodach-baladan's fortresses, as capital.225 This
successful movement cut
off Merodach-baladan from his former allies in Elam. When the Assyrians
crossed the Euphrates and captured the small Babylonian state of
Bit-Dakkuri, Merodach-baladan did not venture upon a fight, but fled
into Yatburu, whence he could communicate with the king of Elam. But
Shutur-nakhundi,226
who
now ruled in Elam in the room of Khumbanigash, was not eager to help
Merodach-baladan, and, though he prudently accepted the gifts which had
been sent to him, offered no help of any kind.227
The Aramaeans could not help him while an Assyrian army held them in
helpless subjection, and the Elamites would not. Merodach-baladan was
powerless with his small army to meet Sargon's seasoned veterans. He
therefore fled southward into his old homeland and fortified himself in
Igbi-Bel, where he spent the winter, which had now begun.228 The
Babylonians, relieved of
their oppressor, hailed Sargon as a deliverer. They organized a
religious and civil procession which went to Dur-Ladinna to escort the
saviour of the country to Babylon. Sargon entered the ancient city, and
in all things conducted himself as a legitimate king of Babylon. He
offered the required sacrifices;229
he restored the canal of Borsippa, which had fallen down;230 and by these
two acts
satisfied the priesthood and helped the country's commerce.

Sargon was now able to have himself proclaimed king
of Babylon, and
might take the god's hands and fulfill the required ceremonies on New
Year's Day of the year 709. If he did this, however, he would have to
repeat it year by year, and that might be in the highest degree
inconvenient, if not impossible. He could not hold the priesthood
faithful to himself if he did not perform the annual ceremonies, and
though he could doubtless compel their obedience without winning their
hearts it would be dangerous and inexpedient. He was too wise to
transfer the capital of his reunited empire to Babylon, and he
therefore adopted an expedient which satisfied both parties--the
Assyrians and the Babylonians. He adopted the title of "shakkanak"--that
is, governor, or viceroy-instead of king of Babylon, and for this he
would not be compelled to renew the ceremony year by year. In the month
of Nisan, at the great feast of Bel, he took the hands of Bel and Nabu
and was proclaimed shakkanak of Babylon. In all respects he had
as much power and influence as though he were called king.231

In the next month Sargon began his campaign against
Merodach-baladan. The unfortunate Chaldean had withdrawn in the early
spring or late winter from Igbi-Bel to his old city of Bit-Yakin, where
he employed his time in the preparation of extensive fortifications
against Sargon, whose invasion he must have been continually expecting.
He opened a canal from the Euphrates and filled the country about the
city with water, breaking down all the bridges, so that no approach to
the city was possible. Sargon found a way to overcome this difficulty,
though he does not enlighten us as to his method. The city, once
attacked, soon fell, and Merodach-baladan, who had been wounded in the
first assault, made good his escape to Elam. An army from the Puqudu
and the Sute, who were coming to help Merodach-baladan, was then
overcome and the city of Bit-Yakin first plundered and then destroyed.232 In the city
Sargon found the
rich men of Babylonia who had been deprived of their property in order
that Merodach-baladan might reward the men who had made him king. They
were sent back to their homes and their property restored. Furthermore,
the priesthood received a rich reward for their share in Sargon's
triumphs by the return of gods whom Merodach-baladan had taken away and
the restoration of the elaborate temple worship in Ur, Uruk, Eridu,
Larsa, and other places of less moment, while the tithes to the temples
were newly revised and imposed upon the people. The land of Bit-Yakin
was placed beyond any opportunities, it would seem, for further
rebellion, by the deportation of a portion of its inhabitants to
Kummukh, from which came captives to take their place. The land was
then turned into an Assyrian province to be governed from Babylon and
Gambuli.233
Awed by such
proceedings, King Uperi, of the island of Dilmun, in the Persian Gulf,
sent gifts.

By this campaign, as much by the peaceful operations
which attended
it as by the success of arms, Babylonia was completely pacified, and
was now ruled easily by the Assyrians for several years. Sargon had
completely restored the old order of things against great odds, and
with extreme difficulty.

While Sargon was engaged thus in Babylonia his
representatives were
hardly less successful elsewhere. In the far west the governor of the
Assyrian province of Que, imitating his royal master, Sargon, invaded
the kingdom of Mushke. The people of Mushke were among the traditional
enemies of Assyria. They had been opposed to Tiglathpileser I, and they
had a large share in stirring up opposition in Syria to later Assyrian
kings. For a long time the Assyrians had not suffered any interference
at their hands. Their dominions were bounded now on the south and east
by the Taurus and Anti-Taurus, and their ruler was Mita. The Assyrian
governor met with such success in conquest and plunder that Mita was
forced to send an embassy to Sargon, who was then on the borders of
Elam, to sue for peace.234
At the same time Sargon received gifts from seven kings of Cyprus,
though what they may have feared does not appear.235 Years after (708 B. C.)
Sargon acknowledged their gifts with a present of a black marble stele
engraved with his portrait.

At this same period also there was a new spasm of
vigor in the
almost defunct empire of Urartu. Argistis was now king over what
remained of the once powerful empire, and determined to make an effort
to regain some of the lost possessions. He induced Muttallu, prince of
Kummukh, to join in a confederation. Before anything could be
accomplished the news was brought that BitYakin had fallen and an
Assyrian army was already on its way to the north. Muttallu was so
discomfited by this news that he sought safety in flight. His family
and all his treasures fell into the hands of the Assyrians, and his
land was henceforth organized and administered as a province. This fall
of Kummukh happened at just the right time to enable the interchange of
inhabitants with Bit-Yakin, which was mentioned above.236

In 708 we reach the last campaign of which Sargon
has left his own
account. Dalta, prince of Ellipi, who had acknowledged the supremacy of
Assyria, was dead, and there was a strife about the succession between
his sons, Nibe and Ispabara. The former appealed to Elam for help,
which he received, and by which he was able to drive out Ishpabara. The
latter then, on his part, appealed to Sargon, who was the lawful
overlord of the country. Sargon at once responded by sending an army
which conquered Nibe and his Elamite allies, captured his capital city,
Marubishti, and took him prisoner to Assyria. The land was then set
once more in order, with Ishpabara as king.237

After this year all knowledge of Sargon's reign is
lost to us. It is
altogether improbable that lie undertook any more great campaigns, but
rather devoted himself afterward to such efforts to quell incipient
rebellion as filled the last year which we have just described. He had
indeed reached to the full the warlike ambitions of his life. He had
reunited Babylonia to the empire and brought it into complete
subjection, so that it was as easily ruled as Assyria itself. He had
ended the Hittite empire, a great plague spot in his predecessor's
maps. He had crushed the empire of Urartu, or Chaldia, and so rendered
safe his own northern border. He had brought into safe subjection all
the troublesome Syrian states. There were indeed no other undertakings
which he might reasonably hope to accomplish which it would be wise to
begin.

The works of peace in Sargon's reign were as
brilliant as his
campaigns had been. He was not content merely with the repairing of
palaces and temples, or even with their rebuilding, as were most of the
Assyrian kings who were before him. He undertook the colossal task of
founding a new city which should bear his own name,
Dur-Sharrukin(Sargon's-burg). Here he erected a vast palace, which must
have occupied years in the building. Its walls were covered on the
inside with magnificent inscriptions recounting the great deeds of his
reign. These were so admirable in their execution as to give us a
strong impression of the artistic skill of the age which Sargon had
made a conquering age. In 707 the palace was finished and the city
ready for the entrance of the gods who were to transform it from a vast
and beautiful pile of bricks into a real place of residence. Up to this
time the king had resided in Calah. In 706 he entered his new city, but
his enjoyment of its magnificence was very brief. A broken fragment of
an Eponym List gives us some hints of events in the days immediately
preceding his death, but they are too badly preserved to allow us to be
in any way clear as to their meaning.238
Sargon died in the year 705, but whether by the hand of an assassin or
by natural death remains uncertain.239

In the magnificence of his building operations he
probably excelled
all the kings who preceded him. Certainly no ruins of a former age yet
found approach the magnificence of the great palaces which he built in
the city which bore his name. In all other works he is naturally
brought into comparison and contrast with Tiglathpileser III. Like him,
he was great in the planning and organization of great campaigns, and
probably excelled in the patience and slow moving on the outworks and
allies of an enemy's country before making the final attack. He was
also greater in the successful carrying out of great battles and
sieges. For there is nothing in the campaigns of Tiglathpileser which
equals the taking of BitYakin. As an administrator over the destinies
of diverse peoples he is in every way worthy of his predecessor. In the
carrying out of the plan of colonization and deportation he far
exceeded the limits which marked the labors of Tiglathpileser. But it
must be said that in originality of idea and of plan he was far behind
Tiglathpileser. It was he and not Sargon who invented this method of
dealing with turbulent populations. Sargon was only building on the
foundations laid by another, and it is easy to show in many cases that
he is the imitator and not the originator. Nevertheless, there should
be no minishing of his fame as a conqueror and king. If Tiglathpileser
had planned the empire, now become the greatest power in the world, it
was Sargon who had built- much of it and rebuilt nearly all
the rest. Again had a usurper surpassed the greatest deeds of a
legitimate king, and made his name immortal in his country's annals.

CHAPTER VIII

THE REIGN OF SENNACHERIB

IN the same month in which Sargon died, and on the
twelfth day of
the mouth (Ab), Sennacherib240
(704-682) ascended the throne. He was the son of Sargon, who had so
well governed his land and so thoroughly settled his power and control
over it that no attempt was made to disturb the order of succession
from father to son. But, though be succeeded to the inheritance of the
great empire without trouble, there were tremendous difficulties to be
settled at once.

The priesthood of Babylonia and in general the
Babylonian people
were waiting to see what position he would take up with reference to
the proud and ancient people who felt themselves to be the better, even
though they were the weaker, portion of the empire. Had Sennacherib
gone at once to Babylonia and taken the hands of the god, he might have
been proclaimed shakkanak of Babylon, as Sargon had been, and
it is altogether probable that he would have had no important
difficulties with Babylonia. He saw clearly, however, the dangers of a
dual capital and the impossibility of mutually pleasing two great
peoples so diverse in all their ideas and aims. So long as Babylonia
remained a great city, and its citizens nourished their national life
and kept burning their national pride, there would always be arising
opportunities for vexation against Assyria, and therefore possibilities
for some shrewd Babylonian or Chaldean to gain leadership over the
popular clamor and seize the throne. The maintenance of a dual kingdom
was essentially an anomaly. If colonization and deportation
accomplished so much in the north and the west for continuity and
peace, why should just the opposite plan be continued in Babylonia?
Tiglathpileser, Shalmaneser, and Sargon had done nothing to diminish
the national feeling in Babylonia, but rather had contributed fuel to
the flame. Tiglathpileser's visits to Babylon in order that he might be
proclaimed king had fostered Babylonian pride, in that they made the
Assyrian king a suitor for honors at the hands of the priesthood,
though he had in reality won his triumph by force of arms. Shalmaneser
had done exactly the same thing. Sargon had done even worse, for he had
accepted the lesser title of shakkanak in order that he might
be delivered from the onerous annual visit to Babylon and be free to
come and go as he pleased. Sennacherib would do none of these things.
He was a loyal Assyrian and no Babylonian, and was determined to break
with all this past history, in which his own country had the power, but
gave up its semblance and its show. He would possess that also, and
show the world that Assyria was not merely the head of the empire, but
its absolute master. He would, in other words, treat Babylonia as a
subject state and pay no attention to its royal ideas, its kingly
titles, and its priestly authorities. It is possible that in this
decision jealousy was mixed up with ambition. Sennacherib could not
have looked the empire over without learning that Assyria was still a
raw and uncouth country, leaning upon Babylonia for every sign of
culture. Perhaps he felt that this position of Babylon itself might
make it some day the capital of the entire empire, while Assyria lost
its leadership altogether. His policy must prevent any such possibility
as that. Sennacherib must have formed his plans and matured his policy
even before his father was dead, for it seems to come into play at
once. The first sign of it was purely negative, but it was carefully
noted in Babylonia, and the record of the divergent views has come down
to us. Sennacherib did not go to Babylon to be crowned or proclaimed
king or shakkanak. As we now see the case from the vantage
point of later history this was a fatal blunder. The empire divided in
opinion at once. The so-called Babylonian Chronicle, resting on
official sources, sets down for 704and 703 Sennacherib as king
of Babylon. That is to say, Sennacherib, without the carrying out of
the usual rites, without the ordinary concessions to the time-honored
regulations of the priesthood, without any salve for Babylonian pride,
called himself king of Babylon, and the state record, compiled by
authority, sets him down as king. But the Ptolemaic Canon, which
clearly goes back to Babylonian sources, marks the years 704 and 703 as
"kingless."241This
was the real Babylonian opinion. This man Sennacherib might collect his
taxes and tributes because be had the armed forces wherewith to enforce
his demands, but he could not force the hearts of the people to
acknowledge him as the genuine, the legitimate, king. In this, the
first stroke of a new and revolutionary policy, Sennacherib had made
provision for a disturbance which should vex his life, if, indeed, it
did not disrupt his kingdom-such force have ancient custom and solemn
religious rites.

This state of affairs could not continue long--an
Assyrian king
claiming to be king in Babylon while the Babylonians denied that he was
king at all. A rebellion broke out in Babylonia, and a man of humble
origin, called in the King List242
son of a slave, by name Marduk-zakir-shumu, was proclaimed king. Here
was again a disturbance brought on by folly, and likely to grow worse
be. fore it was better. In this condition of affairs the ever-watchful
and certainly able Merodach-baladan saw his opportunity.
Marduk-zakir-shumu had reigned one month when the Chaldean appeared,
and was able to have himself again set up as king (702). He
now set out to bring about a condition of affairs which would compel
Sennacherib to leave him alone in the enjoyment of the old honor and
position. It was Sargon who had so long left him in peace, while he was
occupied in pacifying the west. If he could now disturb the west again
and divert from himself Sennacherib and his armies, he might again be
permitted to rule long enough to fix himself firmly in his position.
This time he might hope to have less difficulty in satisfying
his Elamite and Chaldean followers. The plan was adroit, and promised
well. The Book of Kings243
narrates that Merodach-baladan sent an embassy to Hezekiah to
congratulate him on his recovery from a severe illness. Hezekiah showed
his visitors the royal treasures and arsenals, doubt. less greatly
impressing them with the wealth and strength of Judah. There is no hint
of any ulterior purpose in the mind of Merodach-baladan, but the result
shows pretty clearly that this embassy was really intended to sow seeds
of rebellion. It is most probable that be also sought to draw Egypt
into some rebellious compact, for Sennacherib later had also to fight
that country. The plan to divert Sennacherib to the west failed because
the state of affairs in the kingdom was very different from that which
had obtained in the days of Sargon. Sargon was a usurper, and had to
make sure of his borders and establish himself upon the throne. On the
other hand, Sennacherib inherited a kingdom which accepted his rule
without a murmur, and was therefore better able to look after
Merodach-baladan at once. He made no false step in the quelling of this
rebellion, though his own folly had been the real cause of it. He
determined to leave the Palestinian states to their own pleasure and
strike at the root of the disaffection in Babylonia.

Sennacherib crossed the Tigris and marched in the
direction of
Babylon, meeting with little opposition until he reached Kish, about
nine miles east of Babylon, where Merodach-baladan had deployed his
forces. Here was fought the first battle, and Merodach-baladan was
completely routed and forced to seek safety in flight.244 The city of
Babylon was not
prepared for a siege, and Sennacherib entered it without difficulty.
The palace of Merodach-baladan was plundered of everything valuable,
but apparently Sennacherib did not disturb the possessions of the
native Babylonians. He then marched into Chaldea, ransacking the whole
country. In one of his records of this campaign Sennacherib declares
that he destroyed eighty-nine cities and eight hundred and twenty
villages;245
in another
he gives seventy-six cities and four hundred and twenty villages.246 Whatever the
correct figures
may be there can be no doubt that the land was fearfully punished.
Merodach-baladan, who had hidden himself in Guzuman, was not captured.
When this was done Sennacherib set about the governmental
reorganization of the country. He had with him a young man named
Belibni, a Babylonian by birth, but reared in the royal palace of
Assyria. Him Sennacherib made king in this year (702), after
Merodach-baladan had reigned but nine months.247
When Sennacherib was ready to return to Assyria he carried back immense
booty with him, and besides the horses and asses and camels and sheep
he took away two hundred and eight thousand people.248 This extensive deportation
must have been made, according to the policy of Tiglathpileser, to
achieve peace and prevent further rebellion. How well even this heroic
treatment succeeded with a high-strung people like the Babylonians only
later history can show.

After the end of the Babylonian campaign Sennacherib
marched into
the territory of the Kasshu and Yasubigallu, who lived in the Median
mountains east of Babylonia. They were a semi-barbaric people, and the
campaign must have been undertaken merely to make the Assyrian border
country safe from their plundering raids. The invasion was successful
in reducing the country, and captives of war were settled in it, while
the nomadic inhabitants were forced to settle down in the cities. In
this country some of the Babylonians whom Sennacherib had carried off
may have found their home. Thence into Ellipi Sennacherib continued his
march. Ishpabara, whom Sargon had made king, had not paid his tribute
regularly, and must now be punished. Fearing the consequences of his
faithlessness, Ishpabara fled, and Sennacherib easily captured the
capital, Marubishti, with the villages in its environs. A part of the
country was colonized and then. annexed to the province of Kharkhar, as
Ellipi had been to that of Arrapkha. After the withdrawal of the
Assyrians, Ishpabara appears to have regained some of his lost
territory.249

In 701 Sennacherib was forced to invade the west. He
gives us no new
reasons for this invasion, but the occasion for it is easily read
between the lines of his records, and deduced from the biblical
narrative. When rebellions were afoot in Babylonia, and for a time at
least were successful, when Egypt was eager to regain lost prestige in
a land where she had once been all-powerful, when an embassy from the
indefatigable Merodach-baladan had come all the way from Babylonia to
win sympathy and the help of a diversion in the west, it was hardly
possible that these small states should remain quiet and pay their
annual tribute without a murmur. We do not know how much inclined
Hezekiah of Judah may have been to join in an open rebellion at this
time. He had, however, taken up a position which would make it easy for
him to do so; and the war party with its national enthusiasm and
unthinking patriotism was strong at his court. This policy was bitterly
opposed by Isaiah, the leader of the cautious minded men, who saw only
disaster in any breach with Assyria at this time. Isaiah was no lover
of Assyria, but he saw clearly how weak and poor was the help which the
land might hope for from the outside. The Syrian states had suffered
much from their former reliance on Egypt, and there was certainly no
reason to hope that matters would be any better now. The wisest counsel
was undoubtedly that of Isaiah. But, even though Hezekiah was willing
to take it, which he certainly was not, it would have been almost
impossible for him to do so. The whole land was aflame with patriotism,
and woe betide the man, even a king, who dared to oppose it.

Indeed the king had himself done much to foster not
only this very
spirit, now become dangerous, but also to quicken a consciousness of
security which could not fail to collapse in the presence of such
armies as Assyria was able to put into the field. Hezekiah had been
victorious over the Philistines,250
and that probably very early in his reign; why should he not also
conquer the Assyrians? would be the simple reasoning of those who had
not directly experienced the Assyrian advance in war. He had built an
aqueduct by which an abundant supply of flowing water was brought
within the city walls. What that meant for the city is almost
incalculable by occidentals. Jerusalem had never had flowing water
before within its walls. It could therefore easily be taken by a siege
in the dry season. Hezekiah had supplied this primary need, and by so
doing had immeasurably added to the defensibility of the city. There is
no doubt that this was a war measure, and that it would be so
understood and interpreted by the people is even more clear.251 How easy was
the task of the
anti-Assyrian party with such arguments as these--victory over the
Philistines, and a new aqueductùto break down the opposition led
by Isaiah and supported by his unpopular associates. All that Isaiah
actually accomplished was the postponement of the breach with Assyria;
without him it would inevitably have come sooner.

As in Judah, so also in Egypt was the way preparing
for an uprising
in Syria. An Ethiopian dynasty was now ruling, nominally at least, over
the whole land of Egypt. But there is evidence enough to show that the
Ethiopian king could hardly claim to be absolute master of the
destinies of the Nile valley. Sennacherib in his narrative of the later
campaign refers not to the king of Egypt, but to the kings of Egypt,
and his successors upon the Assyrian throne supply us with lists of the
names of kings over districts of Egypt. All these district kings were
striving for more power, and the Ethiopian overlord must gain
ascendancy over them all before he could dispose, as he would, of
Egypt's greatness. He could readily see that a movement outside of
Egypt, against external foes, would be certain, if successful, to
increase his prestige at home. The same hopes would be in the minds of
the district kings. A policy like this pursued by a district king,
such, for example, as Sibe, might make him, instead of the Ethiopian
overlord, the real king of Egypt. If one of these kings was seeking a
place in which to gain advantage by interference, there was none more
promising than Syria. Even a slight hope of regaining it would readily
unite all parties in Egypt, and he would be sure of his throne. He
would thus be glad to encourage any patriotic party in Syria to appeal
to him for help, hoping, when the accounts were reckoned up, to be able
to turn to his own advantage whatever help he might give to the rebels
against Assyria. Gladly would he listen to an appeal for help from
Judah. And in spite of Isaiah the appeal was sent. An embassy from
Hezekiah, naturally laden with presents, went to Egypt252 and the
Egyptians promised
assistance. More and more the patriotic party in Judah gained the
ascendancy. The country was ready for a daring stroke against Assyria.
Hezekiah became the moving spirit of a rebellion which swept over all
the Syrian states.253

The rebellion broke first in Ekron. Here the
Assyrian had set up a
governor who remained faithful to his masters beyond the Euphrates, to
the bitter end. The uprising in leis city was general if not universal.
"The governors, chiefs, and people of Ekron," as Sennacherib says,254 cast Padi
into iron chains
and then delivered him up to Hezekiah255
to be shut up in prison. This act in itself-and our knowledge of it
comes at firsthand from Sennacherib's own historiographers, and not
from the Hebrews-shows that Hezekiah was regarded as the real head of
the insurrection. Sennacherib could not brook such an insult as this to
a prince whom the Assyrians had set up, for nothing of Assyrian
prestige could be saved if this were allowed to go unpunished. He
resolved to proceed at once in person at the head of his armies and
strike suddenly before the forces of all Syria could unite. His first
point of attack was the Phoenician cities. Sennacherib says nothing
about a siege of Tyre at this time, for he was certainly not prepared
to attack a city which could only be reached successfully by the sea.
He was, however, able to ravage its tributary cities on the mainland,
and so affect it indirectly. Having thus injured the city's commerce
and frightened its defenders, Sennacherib turned against Sidon.
Eluloeus (Luli), who was now king, dared not await the conqueror's
approach, and fled. The city surrendered at once, and Sennacherib made
it the capital of a new province. Tyre had been engaged in setting up a
new confederation of which it should be the head. Sennacherib could now
forestall this by setting up Ethobal as king in Sidon and giving him
Sidon, Bit-Zitti, Sarepta (Sariptu), Machalliba, Ushu, Ekdippa
(Akzibu), and Akko (now Acre) as his kingdom.

The very presence of the Assyrian monarch, engaged
in his work of
making and unmaking kingdoms, filled all Syria with terror. States
which had been ready enough to rebel against Assyrian tribute were now
ready to surrender without the faintest attempt at a fight. Among these
who had more discretion than valor were Menahem (Minchimmu) of
Samsimuruna, the location of which is unknown;256
Abdili'ti of Arvad, Urumilki of Byblos,257
Mitinti of Ashdod, Buduilu of Beth-Ammon, Kammusu-nadab of Moab, and
Malik-rammu of Edom.258
All these brought heavy and costly presents, and so assured Sennacherib
of their desire to live peaceably and pay well their tribute. This
formidable defection from the ranks of the rebels greatly reduced their
chances for success, for it left large spaces of territory from which
neither supplies nor men could be drawn. Sennacherib, however, had not
yet terrorized all Syria, and there were some who boldly held on their
course and prepared for defense. Of these states Ashkelon first
demanded severe treatment from Sennacherib. Tiglathpileser had set up
Rukipti as king over the people of Ashkelon, but his son,
Sharru-ludari, had been driven out and a usurper named Zidqa was now
ruling in the city. His only hope of a continuance in power was in
successful resistance to Sennacherib. The city was, however, soon
taken, and Zidqa with all his family was carried off to Assyria, and
Sharruludari set up as king. It is somewhat surprising that this
conquest did not bring about more desertions from the rebels, but the
remainder held fast and had to be reduced piecemeal. Even the other
cities which formed part of the little kingdom of Ashkelon had to be
taken one at a time; so fell Beth-Dagon, Joppa, Benebarqa,259 and Azuru.

The campaign was now swiftly approaching Ekron, and
Sennacherib is
probably reporting only the actual fact when he says that the people of
Ekron feared in their hearts.260
Before he had his reckoning with them he must first meet a formidable
foe. Unlike former kings of Egypt, or of its separate districts, the
present rulers were determined to send some help to the newly gained
allies in Palestine, or Syria. They might well do so, for it was not
merely the possession of Syria which was now in the balance, but even
the autonomy of Egypt itself. No man could possibly tell when the
Assyrians would invade the land of the Pharaohs if Syria were wholly
theirs, and hence a safe base of operations and supplies. As we have
said before, there is every good reason for believing that this had
long ago been contemplated in Assyria. The forces of the Egyptians,
advancing northward, united with a contingent from Melukhkha, probably
not very large, and then proceeded onward, intending doubtless a
junction with the troops of Hezekiah. Before this could be effected
Sennacherib halted the advance at Altaku261
and offered battle. It was a battle of giants, and, though Sennacherib
boasts of the usual victory, it must have been achieved with great
loss. That the victory in a measure was his there can be no doubt. He
captured the son of an Egyptian king and the son of a general of
Melukhkha. The cities of Eltekeh and Timnath were then taken, and the
road was opened to Ekron. Ekron could offer no effectual resistance,
and the city was terribly punished. The chief men who had driven Padi
from the throne were impaled on stakes about the city, while their
unhappy followers were deported. The Assyrian party in the city was, on
the other hand, peacefully treated.262
It was a horrible object lesson to those who looked on. Padi, who was
still in the hands of Hezekiah, was later restored to the command of
the city.

At first thought it seems remarkable that
Sennacherib did not follow
up this victory over the Egyptians. Their allies in Palestine were
defeated; their detachments from Arabia were routed; they themselves
were in full flight. Much indeed might have been gained by a decisive
castigation of troublesome Egypt. But Sennacherib's chief enemy in all
this campaign was Hezekiah, and Jerusalem his real goal.263 Until the
Judwan king was
ruined and Jerusalem devastated, as Ekron had been, the object of the
campaign would not be fulfilled.

Into Jerusalem came the news of the Egyptian defeat
at Eltekeh and
of the overwhelming of Ekron, and still Hezekiah did not offer to
surrender. Up from the plains of Philistia came the victorious Assyrian
army, and one by one the fortified cities of Judah fell before it until
forty-six had been taken. Their inhabitants were now reckoned as
Assyrian subjects, and according to the historians of Sennacherib they
numbered two hundred thousand one hundred and fifty.264 These cities were then
divided between Mitinti, king of Ashdod, Padi, king of Ekron, and
Zil-Bal, king of Gaza-a serious loss of territory to Hezekiah.
Thoroughly convinced now that further resistance would mean utter
destruction, Hezekiah determined to submit and secure such terms as he
could. He sent an embassy to Sennacherib, whose headquarters were
established at Lachish in the Shephela. Sennacherib demanded a tribute
of thirty talents of gold and eight hundred of silver, as the Assyrian
accounts represent,265
or
three hundred talents of silver, as the Hebrew narrative266 recounts. The
securing of
such a sum was a grievous task, and it was only accomplished by
stripping the temple of ornaments and furnishing. The humiliation of
Hezekiah was as complete as his impoverishment. It was also probably at
this time that Padi, king of Ekron, was delivered up by Hezekiah, and
thereupon resettled in the rule over his city.267
When Sennacherib had secured the gifts he did not rest satisfied, but,
feeling sure that he could not be resisted, demanded the surrender of
Jerusalem. A part of his army, under the command of a Rabshakeh, a
general officer of some kind, is sent, with a detachment of troops as
escort, to express his determination. This brought about a panic in the
populace, and the king himself was in a frenzy of fear. Years later
Sennacherib might well say of Hezekiah: "I shut him up like a caged
bird in Jerusalem, his royal city."268
The city was not besieged, but was blockaded, so that all hope of
succor from outside was cut of.269
Within the walls, amid all the confusion and fear, preparations for a
last defense went on vigorously.270
Without them, at the "conduit of the upper pool, which is in the
highway of the fuller's field,"271negotiations were carried on between the Rabshakeh on the one
side, and on the other Eliakim, palace governor; Shebna, state
recorder; and Joah, chancellor.

Though both threatened and cajoled, Hezekiah refused
to give up the
city, and the Rabshakeh withdrew his force and joined the main body at
Libnah, whither Sennacherib had withdrawn from Lachish, which had
succumbed to superior force. It was conceived to be a place of such
importance that its conquest is celebrated by Sennacherib in a
magnificent wall inscription with pictures in relief.272

Sennacherib had now to decide upon the course to be
pursued in view
of Hezekiah's determined persistence. It was clear that Jerusalem could
only be taken after a siege, and this was apparently resolved upon,
when news reached Libnah that Tirhaqa, king of Ethiopia, was advancing
out of Egypt to give aid to Hezekiah.273
A letter was dispatched274
at once to Jerusalem demanding the capitulation of the city, and at the
same time Sennacherib moved southward to meet Tirhaqa. He probably
reached Pelusium,275
on
the very confines of Egypt, a place famous both before and since that
day as a center for the dissemination of the plague,276 and there pestilence
suddenly fastened upon the Assyrian army. All hopes of invading Egypt
must be abandoned, and Sennacherib led homeward only a miserable
fragment of an army which had hitherto proved almost invincible. The
joy of that hour to all the west may scarcely even be imagined. To the
Hebrews it meant nothing less than God's intervention to save the
remnant of a kingdom once so glorious.277
To Tirhaqa it gave some claim to have conquered the Assyrians, and as a
victor over Khatte, Arados, and Asshur he is celebrated in one of his
own inscriptions.278
The
tradition of that wonderful deliverance lived on in Egypt, and was told
to Herodotus279by
his cicerone in the temple of Ptah, at Memphis. As he reproduces the
story, field mice gnawed the thongs of the bows and devoured the
quivers of the army of Sennacherib, "king of the Arabians and
Assyrians," so that "a priest of Vulcan, called Sethos," readily had a
victory over them. As thus narrated the story contains much
unhistorical material, though told with fire and force, but it surely
has a basis in historic fact, and refers doubtless to the same event as
the Hebrew writer has described.280

Though successful in all the great campaigns down
the seacoast from
Sidon to Ashkelon and up the slopes of the hill country to within
fifteen miles of Jerusalem,281
Sennacherib had, nevertheless, failed in the main object of his
expedition. Jerusalem still stood, and but for pestilence it would have
been a smoking ruin, as Ekron. Hezekiah still reigned, and that with
increased prestige, and but for pestilence he would be a captive in
Nineveh, as was Zidka, king of Ashkelon. Ethiopia was left free to
continue its peaceful assimilation of Egypt, and but for the pestilence
Assyrian governors would be ruling its fertile valleys as even now they
held sway in Ashdod. Sennacherib's failure in the west justified in
every particular the foresight and statesmanship of Isaiah, and the
echo of the prophet's words would resound when the empty boasts of the
defeated king were known only to quiet students. For twenty years
longer did Sennacherib possess the power of Assyria, but he never
invaded Palestine again.

Sennacherib had left Babylonia in the full enjoyment
of peace, but
he had also sown thoroughly the seeds of unrest. Bel-ibni, one of his
own creatures, was on the throne, but however well disposed he was,
there was no hope that he might success. fully resist the distemper of
the people. Their patriotic love for Babylon, their belief that once a
world city meant always a world city, had been grossly trodden under
foot by the Assyrian king; their inborn religious feeling had been
outraged beyond endurance by a king who paid not the least attention to
their solemn rites of coronation. Sennacherib was now deeply embroiled
in the western troubles, and the Babylonians thoroughly understood
them, for news traveled far and fast in the ancient Orient. The time
was, to their mind, auspicious for the reassertion of national ideals.
No matter what Bel-ibni may have desired, he was forced by resistless
public sentiment into a position hostile to Assyria. Ever ready for any
chance at his old enemy, Merodach-baladan of the Sea Lands joined in
the rebellion, and the Chaldeans, under a native prince named
Marduk-ushezib, also engaged in it. This looked like a promising
rebellion, though that the confederates could divide the land between
them if there was success might well be doubted.

The new organization of affairs in Babylonia went
well for a short
period, until the appearance in 700 of Sennacherib: At once the whole
compact fell to pieces. Bel-ibni was captured. and sent ignominiously
to Assyria, whose training he had dishonored, along with his foolish
counselors. Marduk-ushezib fled toward the south, and went into hiding
in the marshes at the mouths of the rivers. Merodach-baladan embarked
his gods and his people upon ships, and sailing down the Persian Gulf,
settled along the eastern shores in the land of Elam, whither
Sennacherib did not dare to follow him. There he soon after died. No
man like him as an opponent of Assyria had arisen since the days of
Ben-Hadad II of Damascus. Adroit enough to surrender always at the
right time, ever full of resources when there was the least hope of
success, implacable in his hostility, his removal from action was a
great boon to Assyria. His name did not die with Min, but his
descendants, of the same stuff in their persistency, remained to plague
a later day in Assyrian history. The land of Bit-Yakin was next ravaged
by Sennacherib in the vain attempt to root out the elements of discord
and disaffection. On his return northward Sennacherib had his own son,
Asshur-nadin-shum, proclaimed in Babylon as king.282 And so began another attempt
at governing this difficult part of the empire.

In the next year (699) military operations were
necessary in Cilicia
and Kappadokia. The mountainous country of Khilakku, amid the crags of
the Taurus, was penetrated and reduced to subjection. Rebellion in the
lower parts of Cilicia, in the province created by Sargon, was stamped
out by the destruction of the capital. This campaign seems to have made
a great impression at the time. Sennacherib boasts of the overcoming of
extraordinary obstacles in mountain climbing; and Berossos283 ascribes to
him the erection
of the city of Tarsus. By this he can only mean rebuilding or
restoration, for the city is known to have been in existence at least
as early as Shalmaneser II. Another campaign, probably little more than
a raid, was directed about the same time against Tumur, in the north.

Again were troubles brewing in Babylonia, even while
the king's own
son maintained his precarious rule. The Chaldeans were not so well led
as they had been, but even in exile they ceased not to plot against the
nation which had humiliated them. A large number of Chaldeans had left
the south lands of Babylonia and settled on the coasts of Elam. Here
they were an ever-present menace to the peace of Babylonia. In 694
Sennacherib undertook a campaign for their destruction. It was a
campaign extraordinary in conception and execution. He built boats on
the Tigris and manned them with Phoenicians and Cyprians, who were
better used to ships than the land-loving Assyrians.284 The boats were then floated
down the Tigris to Upi (Opis), and thence conveyed overland to the
Euphrates by camels, where they were again launched and went down to
the Persian Gulf. A short sail brought the forces to the colonies which
Merodach-baladan had founded, where the cities were destroyed and their
inhabitants slain or carried into captivity.285
Never before had Sennacherib made a direct attack on Elam, and this was
not to go by without an effort after revenge. Khallus, the Elamite
king, invaded Babylonia and plundered Sippar. Asshur-nadinshum, who had
enough courage to oppose him, was taken captive to Elam,286 whence he
apparently never
returned. The Elamites then crowned in Babylonia a native by the name
of Nergal-ushezib. This act again divided the land. The new king held
only northern Babylonia, while all the south was in Assyrian hands.
Nergal-ushezib attempted to gain control also over the south, and
marched to Nippur, which he took in 693.287
Shortly after he met an Assyrian army, and a battle was fought in which
he was taken prisoner and carried to Assyria.288
In Elam an uprising took place in which Khallus was killed, and the
throne came to Kudur-nakhundi.289
These reversals of fortune seemed to hand over the land of Babylon
again to the Assyrians, but the matter was by no means settled. The
Assyrians could not hope to hold Babylonia in safety if the Elamites
were not so punished for the late invasion that they would never dare
the like again. The change in kings gave a favorable opportunity, and
Sennacherib invaded the land. He claims to have sacked and burned
thirty-four cities and to have seized much treasure. The king was not
taken nor his capital city besieged-and this failure Sennacherib
ascribes to weather of unusual severity and to great cold.290
Kudur-nakhundi lived only
three months more, and was succeeded by his younger brother,
Umman-minanu, whom Sennacherib considered a man without judgment and
intelligence.291

While these events were happening in Elam, and
Sennacherib was tied
down to his efforts there, another Chaldean seized the reins of power
in Babylonia. Mushezib-Marduk was made king in Babylon in 692. It is
one of the curious changes in history that he was supported by the
native Babylonians. It was but a short time since the Babylonian hatred
of Chaldeans was so strong that an Assyrian king who was able to drive
them from the country was hailed as a deliverer. Now the Babylonians
were filled with hatred and dread of the Assyrians, and made common
cause with the Chaldeans against them. The Babylonians and Chaldeans
then gained as another ally the Elamites, by giving to Umman-minanu the
treasures of the ancient temple of E-sagila as a bribe. Political
necessities had surely made strange bedfellows when the Elamites, who
so recently had been invaders and plunderers in Babylonia, were now
chosen friends to strengthen a Chaldean upon a Babylonian throne. With
the Elamites were found as allies peoples of many places which had been
organized as Assyrian provinces but a short time before. Among these
were Parsua, Ellipi, and the Puqudu, the Gambuli, and, most interesting
of all, Samunu, the son of Merodach-baladan, who had revenge in his
heart beyond a doubt, and was glad of an opportunity to meet his
father's enemy. The allies came down into Babylonia, and Sennacherib's
historiographer waxed eloquent as he thought of that great array. They
were "like a great swarm of locusts."292
"The dust of their feet was like a storm by which the wide heavens are
covered with thick clouds."293
In 691 Sennacherib met the combined armies at Khalule.294 The
description of the
battle as the Annals have preserved it is one of the most thrilling in
all Assyrian literature.295
Words of blood and fire are heaped one upon the other to set forth the
overwhelming might of the great king's opponents and the awful butchery
which they suffered. But the very protestations of such complete
victory awaken skepticism, which becomes conviction when we survey the
conclusion of the whole conflict. Immediately after the battle
Sennacherib withdrew to Assyria. He made no attempt to pursue the
forces which he is said to have routed, neither did he turn to Babylon
to drive the usurper from the throne. If he really did gain the victory,296 it must have
been with
tremendous losses which could not be promptly repaired.

In 689 Sennacherib again invaded Babylonia and came
up to the city
itself. The Babylonians had now no Elamite allies, and the city was
soon taken. Thereupon ensued one of the wildest scenes of human folly
in all history. The city was treated exactly as the Assyrian kings had
been accustomed to treat insignificant villages which had joined in
rebellion. It was plundered, its inhabitants driven from their homes or
deported, its walls broken down. The torch was then applied, and over
the plain rolled the smoke of consuming temples and palaces, the fruit
of centuries of high civilization. All that the art of man had up to
that time devised of beauty and of glory, of majesty and of
massiveness, lay in one great smoldering ruin. Over this the waters of
the Euphrates were diverted that the site of antiquity's greatest city
might be turned into a pestilential swamp. Marduk, the great god of the
city, was carried away and set up in the city of Asshur, that no future
settlers might be able to secure the protection of the deity who had
raised the city to eminence. Marduk-ushezib was carried a prisoner to
Assyria.297

It was undoubtedly the hope and belief of
Sennacherib that he had
finally settled the Babylonian question, which had so long burdened him
and former kings of Assyria. There would now, in his opinion, be no
further trouble about the crowning of kings in Babylon and the taking
of the hands of Marduk, for the city was a swamp and Marduk an exile.
There would be no more glorification of the city at the expense of
Nineveh, which was now, by a process of elimination, assuredly the
chief city of western Asia. But in all this Sennacherib reasoned not as
a wise man. He had indeed blotted out the city, but the site hallowed
by custom and venerated for centuries remained. He had slain or driven
into exile its citizens, but in the hearts of the survivors there
burned still the old patriotism, the old pride of citizenship in a
world city. He had humbled the Babylonians indeed, but what of the
Chaldeans who had already produced a Merodach-baladan and might produce
another like him, who would seek revenge for the punishment of his race
and its allies in Babylonia? From a purely commercial point of view the
destruction had been great folly. The plundering of the great city
before its burning had undoubtedly produced immense treasure to carry
away into Assyria, but there would have been a great annual income of
tribute, which was now cut off; and a vast loss by the fire, which
blotted out warehouses and extensive stores as well as temples and
palaces. This historic crime would later be avenged in full measure. In
any estimation of the character of the Assyrian people the destruction
of Babylon must be set down by the side of the raids and the murders of
Asshurnazirpal. It is a sad episode in human history which gave over to
savages in thought and in action the leadership of the Semitic race,
and took it away from the He. brews and Aramaeans and the
culture-loving Babylonians.

For eight long and weary years the only record of
the Babylonian
Chronicle and the Ptolemaic Canon is, "There was no king in Babylon."
The babble of many tongues of diverse peoples who had garnered
knowledge, carved beautiful statues, experimented in divers forms of
government, sang hymns of praise, and uttered plaints of penitence was
hushed, and in its place was the great silence of the desert, which a
ruthless destroyer had made.

At some time between 688 and 682 Sennacherib again
went westward
into Arabia. Sargon had there met with extraordinary success. But the
results had been very short-lived. The Bedouin inhabitants were able to
pay tribute, and would do so for a time if there was fear of
punishment, but they were so continually moving about front place to
place with their flocks and herds that it was difficult to follow them
and keep them in dread. It was one thing to punish a people who had
houses and cities, it was another thing to discipline a people whose
black tents of camel's hair were quickly folded and their possessors
swept silently away over pathless deserts beneath a blazing and
relentless sun. Sennacherib's long absence had blotted out the memory
of the past among the Arabians, and they were now rather under Egyptian
than Assyrian influence. To restore the Assyrian position was the
object of an expedition known to us only by a reference in the
inscriptions of Sennacherib's son and successor. Adumu, a sort of
settlement, probably the Dumatha of Ptolemy, was taken and the gods
carried away to Assyria.298
More than this could hardly have been accomplished among a population
such as this. Though we have no mention of it, it is probable that some
booty was secured, and the Assyrian prestige would be increased by the
taking away of the gods.

It was the last act of Sennacherib in war. Shortly
after his return
home, on the twentieth day of the month Tebet, in the year 681, he was
murdered in a temple by the hands of his own sons, [Nergal]-sharezer
and Adarmalik.299
Like
many another assassination, west and east, the crime was due to
jealousy of another son and desire to secure the succession to the
throne. So ended a reign little worthy of the one which had preceded
it. Sennacherib's inscriptions indeed boast loudly of great victories,
but there seems but little foundation for most of them. He added
nothing to what his father had won and held. His hand was a hand of
iron and blood, and not of real creative power. No great policy of
administration was devised or begun by him. That he was Sargon's son
had won him position, that he had brute force in certain measure had
held it for him. The empire had been maintained in its integrity,
though the fairest portion of it had been changed into ruin and waste
in the doing of it.

The only act of peace which may safely be predicated
of his reign
was the transfer of the capital from Dur-Sharrukin to Nineveh, where a
palace was reerected on old foundations, in which the king dwelt. He
began to make Nineveh the world's chief city by the erection of this
palace, and by the destruction of the greater Babylon the self-imposed
task was completed.

CHAPTER IX

THE REIGN OF ESARHADDON

WE do not know the exact circumstances which led to
the
assassination of Sennacherib, but we shall not be far astray, in all
probability, if we ascribe it to jealousy on the part of his sons.
While he yet lived Sennacherib had made his son, Esarhaddon
(Asshur-akh-iddin), a sort of regent over Babylonia. He bad also by
decree made him the legal heir to the throne, though he was almost
certainly not the eldest son.

During his residence in Babylonia in these early
years of his life
Esarhaddon (680-668)300
was smitten with a great love for the ancient land with all its honored
customs. His whole life shows plainly how deeply he was influenced by
the glory of Babylon's past, and how eager he was to see undone the
ruin which his father had wrought. As soon as the news of his father's
death reached his ears he caused himself to be proclaimed as shakkanak
of Babylon. In this he was going back to the goodly example of his
grandfather Sargon. Sennacherib had ceased altogether to wear a
Babylonian title. Babylonia was to him not a separate land united with
his own, but a subject territory inhabited by slaves whom he despised.
Esarhaddon did not even take the name of king, which in Babylonian eyes
would have been unlawful without taking the hands of Marduk, now exiled
to Assyria. Immediately after his proclamation in Babylonia Esarhaddon
hastened to Nineveh, where the rebellion collapsed at once, and he was
received as the legitimate king. According to the Babylonian Chronicle
it had lasted only a month and a half-from the twentieth day of Tebet
to the second day of Adar.301
The biblical story represents the two murderers as fleeing to Armenia,
and there is no reason to doubt that this was the case.302 Esarhaddon's
inscriptions
say that he left Nineveh in the month of Shabat; and this was probably
in pursuit of his brothers.303
He fought a battle with the rebels and their followers at Khanigalbat,
near Melid, and readily overcame them.304
They had probably been hoping for some assistance from Armenia, and now
accepted it. The campaign had lasted only eight months, and in the
month of Kislev, 680, Esarhaddon was crowned king of Assyria.

It is very difficult to follow closely the order of
events in the
reign which was now begun. Unlike Sargon or Sennacherib, Esarhaddon has
left us scarcely a fragment in which the chronological order of events
is followed. He was more concerned in setting forth the deeds
themselves than the order and relation of them-such at least must be
our judgment unless at some time a text of his in true annalistic style
should be found.

In the very first year of his reign (680) Esarhaddon
gave clear
indications of his reversal of his father's policy.305 Babylon had been destroyed;
he would rebuild it. No Assyrian king before him had ever set himself
so great a task. He did not live to see it brought to the final and
glorious consummation which he had planned, but he did see and rejoice
in a large part of the work. With much religious solemnity, with the
anointing of oil and the pouring out of wine, was the foundation laying
begun. From the swamps which Sennacherib had wantonly made slowly began
to rise the renewed temple of E-sagila, the temple of the great gods,
while around it and the newly growing city the king erected from the
foundations upward the great walls of Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel. All
these, as the king boasts, were enlarged and beautified beyond that
which they had been in their former glory. Slowly through the reign
along with the wars which must now be told went on these works of peace
and utility, to find their entire completion in the reign of
Esarhaddon's like-minded son.

The first work of war to which Esarhaddon must
direct his energies
was a new castigation of the Chaldeans. While he was busy in securing
his throne a fresh outbreak had occurred in the old district of the Sea
Lands. Nabu-ziru-kinish-lishir, a son of Merodach-baladan, had gained
some of his family's power in Bit-Yakin, and with this as a base of
operations had possessed himself of the country as far north as Ur.
When Esarhaddon dispatched an army against him he fled to Elam, whither
his father before him had more than once gone for refuge. There was
now, however, a new regime in Elam, and the king, Ummanaldash II,
seized him and slew him. His brother, Na'id Marduk, fled to Assyria and
delivered himself up to Esarhaddon, who, with a mercy that honors his
heart and his judgment, sent him back to BitYakin to rule the country
under Assyrian overlordship.306
This sudden desertion on the part of Elam of its traditional friendship
for Merodach-baladan and the Chaldeans in general is very difficult to
understand. Up to this time the Elamites had always aided every
movement of the Chaldeans against the Assyrians. There happened also a
little later, in 674, another strange manifestation of a new policy
among these same Elamites. While Esarhaddon was elsewhere engaged the
Elamites surged down into Babylonia, and, murdering and plundering as
they went, reached as far as the city of Sippar. The Babylonian
Chronicle records this raid,307
but does not utter a word concerning any retaliation on the part of the
Assyrians.

While Esarhaddon was carrying on the rebuilding of
Babylon, and the
population was returning which had been scattered, be found occasion
for a small passage at arms with the Chaldean tribe of Bit-Dakkuri,
which had gained sudden wealth through the destruction wrought by
Sennacherib. When the Babylonians had been driven away by Sennacherib
from the territory about Babylon and Borsippa these Chaldeans had
promptly taken possession. As the selfsame people were now returning
whom Sennacherib had thus dispossessed, Esarhaddon determined to drive
out the settlers. He deposed their king, Shamash-ibni, and set over
them Nabu-usallim, a son of a certain Balasu mentioned by
Tiglathpileser III.308
When they had been dislodged the lands were restored to their former
owners. At about the same time Esarhaddon undertook to bring into
subjection the tribe of Gambuli, perhaps a mixed race of Aramaeans who
were settled in the border country between Elam and Babylonia near the
mouth of the Tigris. They had given aid to Ummanaldash in his raid in
674, and must now be humbled. Their prince, Bel-igisha, did not dare a
battle,309
and so
surrendered and gave pledge to hold his fortress, Shapi-Bel, as a sort
of outpost against Elamite invasions; it was then strengthened by the
Assyrians for this purpose. Esarhaddon was too prudent to attack Elam;
and there was shortly less need for it. Ummanaldash II died in the same
year, and his successor, Urtaku, was of very different mind as regards
the Assyrians. He appears to have used every effort to maintain peace
and friendship between the two peoples. As an evidence of this temper
of mind stands his action of 673 in sending back to Agade the gods who
at some previous time had been carried away by the Elamites.

All these operations of war were child's play
compared with the
drama in the west, in which Esarhaddon played the chief role. We have
already seen that Sennacherib had signally failed in Syria. He had been
absolutely unable to conquer Tyre, chiefly because it had the sea on
the western side, forming a defense which the Assyrian could not burn
nor pull clown, and of which he was probably well afraid, as a landsman
from the east might well be. His efforts in Judah, we have also seen,
ended in a calamity for which his superstition or faith could find only
disquieting causes. Furthermore, the only effort at setting up a new
government and of making a center for Assyrian influence had no abiding
power. He had planned to set up Sidon as a rival of Tyre, and to gather
about it in an artificial manner several cities which were better
adapted to be rivals than friends. His rearrangement of the city
dominion had no element of stability in it, and soon dissolved.
Ethobal, whom he had made king, was probably loyal enough, and his
personal influence maintained the status, quo, for it was in the end a
personal rather than a national plan. As soon as he was dead and his
son, Abd-milkot, reigned in his place the people of Sidon quietly
dropped the Assyrian allegiance and went on with their dispatching of
ships on the Mediterranean and with the piling up of treasure, none of
which was paid over to Assyria as tribute. Here, then, in the
Phoenician territory were entirely independent states, Tyre and Sidon,
each with its own territory. We are clearly instructed concerning the
territory of Sidon, and, though Sennacherib had stripped Tyre of her
possessions, there is reason to believe that some of them bad been
regained. The wealth alone of these two states might well tempt a king
who was spending upon new and old building operations such regal sums.
Former kings had secured vast sums for the noninterference with
Phoenician commerce; he might certainly hope to gain at least this
boon, not to be despised, and he might also really conquer Phoenicia
and make a loyal province of it.

With such hopes and dreams Esarhaddon led his first
westward
campaign. The way had been well prepared by the Assyrian conquerors who
bad devastated before him, and none would view the onset of his troops
with equanimity. Before he could reach the sea a rebellion was
genuinely on foot. Abd-milkot bad found an ally in Sanduarri, king of
Kundu310
and Sizu,311
two cities, the latter
located in a mountainous, almost impassable, country in northern
Cilicia. Sidon had the protection of the sea, while Kundu and Sizu had
the wild and trackless mountains about them. The Assyrians had often
before crept among the mountains and attacked enemies hidden like birds
among the clefts, as the Assyrian annalist loves to portray them. But
their success by sea had been inconsiderable. The new confederation
seemed to have elements of strength beyond many which had preceded it.
On the approach of the Assyrians the courage of Abd-milkot forsook him
and he fled to sea. Esarhaddon besieged Sidon, and the city held out
well-we do not know exactly how long-but the campaign against the two
rebels lasted three years. It is certainly highly probable that the
greater part of this long period was devoted to the maritime city
rather than to the mountain hamlets. When Sidon fell the city was
devoted to destruction. The walls which had been a defense for ages
were tumbled into the sea; the houses in which wealthy merchants had
lived were torn from their foundations and utterly ruined. The whole
city was leveled to the plain and blotted out of existence.312 All this is
after the models
of ancient days, and shows to what a pitch of wrath Esarhaddon had been
wrought by the long and tedious siege. But at once he turns from this
custom and exemplifies the other and better side. Upon the same site
another city is built and named Kar-Asshur-akh-iddin
(Esarhaddon's-burg), that in it the old commerce might live again. The
new city thus built was peopled by inhabitants of the mountains
conquered in war, and also and more reasonably by others drawn from the
coasts of the Persian Gulf. Abd-milkot was captured, perhaps in Cyprus,
and beheaded. Kundu and Sizu were also taken, and the unfortunate
Sanduarri was treated in the same way.

When Esarhaddon returned from the campaign he
brought with him
substantial evidences of his victory. Kundu and Sizu had probably
enriched him but little, but with Sidon the case was entirely
different. Here was a commercial city through which had passed a goodly
share of the commerce between east and west. As through Gaza passed the
trade of Arabia to the western nations now coveting the luxuries and
refinements of the east, so through Sidon, and especially through Tyre,
passed all that luxurious Asia had to contribute to the sybarites who
lived in Greece and Italy. These things could not pass year by year
through Sidon without leaving a share of the choicest of them in the
hands of those who trafficked. Esarhaddon enumerates in one bald list
the treasure which he carried away. It was of gold, silver, precious
stones, ivory, costly woods, tapestries, and dress stuffs. The color
and the richness of the east were in this mass of wealth. Esarhaddon
had not reckoned too highly upon the gains of his conquest, even if
three years had fled away before it was taken. To these were added the
cattle, the sheep, and the asses which were driven away to render
service hereafter in Assyria. The end of this campaign is a record of
return to the most wretched barbarism of Assyria's darkest days. When
he came up to his city gates Esarhaddon made a triumphal entry to the
sound of loud music. In his train marched his captives, and among them
were the chief men of Sidon, and bound round their necks was the
ghastly head of Abd-milkot, while the principal men of Kundu and Sizu
bore in like manner the head of Sanduarri. It is a strange sight, this
entry into Nineveh, when it is remembered that the king who made it was
Esarhaddon, who had been merciful to a son of Merodach-baladan and had
restored to the Babylonians the lands which his father had wasted. The
natural Assyrian temper had revealed itself in this latest of Assyrian
monarchs.

The attack on Tyre probably began while Sidon was
still in a state
of siege. It was an entirely different problem, and much more
difficult. Tyre was better defended by the sea than Sidon. It was
larger, richer, more determined. There is little doubt that if the
Tyrians had believed that the payment of a heavy gift, or even the
promise to give a large annual tribute, would have freed them from all
further Assyrian disturbance of trade, they would have gladly met
either or both conditions. They had done so before. But there was a
determination about Esarhaddon's actions that could hardly be satisfied
with anything short of absolute control. The people of Tyre wanted to
save some sort of autonomy, in order to the greater freedom of their
commerce, and the only hope for this now was to fight and not to pay
for it. Esarhaddon began his siege in earnest. He walled in the city
entirely upon its landward side, and began a wearisome effort to
conquer it by famine. But of one entrance to their city, and that the
most important, he could not rob the Tyrians. The sea remained open,
and by the sea might readily enter all that Tyre needed for the life of
its citizens. He could deprive the city of its commerce by land, and
that naturally must soon destroy its commerce by sea, but if the
Tyrians had the heart to hold out, they certainly could not be starved
into submission. Ba'al was now king of Tyre and he was clearly of
different stuff from his less courageous predecessors. Year by year the
siege dragged on, while other and greater efforts occupied the
attention of Esarhaddon, and in the end there was no result. The siege
had to be lifted, and Esarhaddon must confess defeat. It is true that
upon one of his largest and most impressive monuments he pictures Ba'al
of Tyre kneeling before his august majesty, who holds him with a ring
through his lips.313
On
the inscription, however, there is not one word about the fall of Tyre,
nor elsewhere in any of Esarhaddon's records is there any claim that
Tyre had been taken. We are forced to the conclusion that Esarhaddon is
here glorying without justification, and that Ba'al of Tyre during his
entire reign maintained his independence. The failure to take Tyre was
a loss, in that great treasure would undoubtedly have been secured, but
in no way was the continued existence of the city a menace to Assyria
or an interference with the progress of Assyrian power anywhere in the
west. There was no danger of any attack by Tyre upon the Assyrian flank
if Esarhaddon should decide to move southward with his forces. Tyre
would go on with her commerce and leave the rest of mankind to fight
its own battles.

Esarhaddon had administered a salutary lesson to
Sidon and its ally;
he would now press on to discourage any further alliances or
confederations in Palestine against himself and his rule. Again and
again the oft-recurring rebellions in Palestine had been brought about
by Egyptian agents who stirred up the small states and hoped to gain
power when Assyria had been driven off. No Assyrian king had hitherto
done more than snuff out the little flame of patriotism and punish the
offenders. None had been so bold as to execute314
a move against Egypt herself, prime cause of all the trouble. It is
proof of the power of an ancient name that this had not been done, for
opportunities there had certainly been in plenty. Egypt had been so
weak that she would probably have fallen an easy prey to armies such as
Assyria had long had in the field. But the Assyrians had in their
thought the Egypt of Thotmosis III and Rameses II, and did not rightly
estimate the Egypt of their own day. Esarhaddon, however, had learned
otherwise in some way, and now laid careful and wise plans for the
overthrow of Egypt. The Assyrians had broken down the great
culture-loving race of the Euphrates and had scattered its treasures;
they would now proceed to do in like manner unto the great people who
had conserved literature and art and science during the march of the
centuries and had survived the wreck which had come to others less
fortunate. The freebooters of Asia, who had sacked and burned and made
howling wastes where once had been beautiful cities, must seek a wider
field and enter Africa.

In 673 Esarhaddon makes his first attack upon
Tirhaqa, the Ethiopian
king of Egypt. The campaign was absolutely without tangible results.
The Assyrian army, indeed, reached the Egyptian border, but did not
cross it. The way was stubbornly contested, and Esarhaddon at length
withdrew temporarily without abandoning his designs. In 670 he again
moved forward,315
and
probably with greatly increased forces. He was soon over the border
upon this campaign, and at the first battle at Iskhupri gained a
decisive victory over the Egyptians. Two more battles followed, and in
these also was he victorious. After a march of fifteen days from
Iskhupri he appeared before the walls of Memphis316
and laid siege to an ancient and magnificent city. Memphis was
unprepared, and soon fell into his hands. The family of Tirhaga was
taken, but the Pharaoh himself made good his escape into Nubia,
paralyzed with fear and hopeless of the very idea of resistance.
Memphis was plundered and destroyed. Esarhaddon had tasted the joys of
plunder and the satisfaction of revenge at Sidon, and was glad to drink
them again to the full. The fall of Memphis filled the whole land with
dismay. Such an event had probably never seemed to the proud people a
possibility. There were no further resources in the country, the king
had fled and left all, and only surrender was possible. AS far as the
confines of Nubia the country surrendered to the Assyrians. In two
brief campaigns, with apparently little loss, an Assyrian army had
undone the work of centuries and humbled in the dust the world's
proudest people. What was lost to the world in the destruction of
Memphis can never be known. How much else of works of art, of
historical memorials, of beautiful buildings, perished may only be
surmised. Esarhaddon admits that he carried away from the temples
fifty-five royal statues. It was a complete overthrow, but the
resistance had been slight and brief, and the land was happily not
devoted to destruction.

At once Esarhaddon reorganized the government of the
country. It was
already divided into twenty-two divisions, called nomes. Over each of
these a native prince was set up, who was really only a puppet in the
hands of the Assyrian officials and assistants by whom he was
surrounded. Even the names of the cities were changed into Assyrian
forms, so that, for example, Sais became Kar-bel-matati (fortress of
the lord of lands), and Athribis was to be Limir-ishakkuAsshur, though
the inhabitants of the country would certainly never adopt such
ill-sounding combinations in the room of that to which their ears for
many generations had been accustomed.317
But that many Egyptians quickly acquiesced in the new order of affairs
is perfectly plain. Over the twenty-two princes Esarhaddon set Necho of
Sais as chief king, subject, of course, to himself as the real
overlord. Necho went so far in devotion to his Assyrian masters as even
to give his son an Assyrian name. It is no wonder that the heart of
Esarhaddon swelled with pride when he contemplated this conquest. That
the youngest power in the Orient had been able to conquer and now to
administer the affairs of a people who had been famous and powerful
centuries before the first Babylonian colonists bad settled in Asshur
was indeed cause sufficient for boasting.

Though the greatest by far, this conquest of Egypt
was not
Esarhaddon's only victory in the west besides Sidon. Various Arabian
tribes had given trouble to Sargon and to Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon
was not free from the same difficulties. Before his first Egyptian
campaign in 674 he had been compelled to attack Melukhkha. Melukhkha
had indeed no political organization coterminous with its geographical
boundaries. Sennacherib mentions a king of Melukhkha, but he could
hardly have reigned over a country so extensive as that which the word
covers in the Assyrian inscriptions. Esarhaddon began his raid, for it
was little else, from Palestine. The deserts were a sore trial to his
troops, unused to any such campaigning, and would have been destruction
to them but for the help given by the people of the little kingdom of
Aribi. Esarhaddon penetrated into the land as far probably as Mount
Shamar. The king of Melukhkha was taken captive, a matter of moment
only in this, that he might have become an ally of Egypt. The entire
campaign was only undertaken to set the people in dread of Assyria and
so make them careful to give no aid or comfort to Assyrians enemies.

In this same connection it is interesting to observe
Esarhaddon's
treatment of the small land of Aribi, the part of northern Arabia which
comes up between Palestine and the Euphrates valley. The Assyrian kings
bad already had dealings with two queens of this country.
Tiglathpileser, Sargon, and Sennacherib had also ravaged in Aribi, and
the land had been brought in a considerable measure under the influence
of Assyria. Hazael, a king of Aribi, had suffered much from
Sennacherib, and had been especially bereaved in the loss of his gods,
which had been carried away. Emboldened, perhaps, by the knowledge that
Esarhaddon had reversed his father's policy in Babylonia, he besought
the king for the return of his gods. The prayer was granted, and a
friendly feeling thus reestablished. And now followed a very strange
act. Esarhaddon set up a new queen in Aribi, who appears not to have
disturbed the established order at all. Her name was Tabua, and she had
been reared at the Assyrian court. How she could have reigned as queen
while Hazael continued as king is somewhat difficult of explanation.318 It appears
probable that we
have here an instance of a sort of double rule. Perhaps the situation
is like that which existed in the Nabathean kingdom at a very much
later date. These kings mention their queens in their inscriptions and
stamp their heads along with their own upon coins, which would seem to
indicate that they exercised some influence in the state.319 Hazael died
during the reign
of Esarhaddon, and was succeeded by his son, variously called Ya'lu and
Yata'.

In the reign of Esarhaddon there was felt for the
first time in all
its keenness the danger of an overflow of the land by great
Indo-European immigrations. Long before this time these peoples, living
in what is now southern Russia, had begun to spread southward. The
Medes formed one great wave of their migration. They had, however,
turned eastward, had settled in the mountains northeast of Assyria, and
beyond Elam, and had not disturbed the Assyrian empire. Greater
migrations than that of the Medes were now becoming severely
threatening. One wave swept down from the northern shores of the Black
Sea, and met with the first Asiatic power in Armenia. Armenia was not
now the power it once had been, but it was, nevertheless, strong enough
to separate the Indo-European horde as by a wedge. One great mass moved
westward into Asia Minor. The other and much less formidable went
westward and southward into the outlying Assyrian provinces. The name
of a leader in this second stream of migration has come down to us in
the form of Ishpakai, who is called an Ashguzaean, which may be the
same as the biblical Ashkenaz.320
This man, leading his horde of Indo-European barbarians, came as far as
Lake Urumiyeh. Here he found the people of Man,321
who had felt the Assyrian power and had paid their annual tribute like
their neighbors. They had, however, been entirely undisturbed for a
long time, as Sennacherib had not invaded their territory at all during
his reign. In the migration of the Indo-Europeans they saw a hope of
securing aid by which all allegiance to Assyria might perhaps be thrown
off. It was a plan of folly, for the new lords which they would thus
secure were not likely to be any better than the old ones whom they put
off. Esarhaddon, learning of this alliance, invaded the country and
conquered Ishpakai, apparently without much trouble.322 It was the easy victory of
discipline over disorder. Esarhaddon may have satisfied his own mind
with the thought that he had removed a great danger, but in reality his
victory was of very slight consequence. He had indeed broken down this
alliance, but he had not disposed of the hordes of men who formed the
migration. Their leaders were ever seeking some new method of harassing
his outposts and plundering his tributary states. Some, like
Kashtariti, even threatened the very existence of the commonwealth, for
he attempted to form a great coalition of the Mannai, the Cimmerians,
and the Chaldians. It fell to pieces from mutual jealousies, but not
without sending Esarhaddon in dread to consult still further the
oracles of the sun god.323

While there were shrewd men like Kashtariti among
these immigrants,
who needed to be treated with consideration and firmness, the greater
mass were like dumb, driven cattle. The Indo-Europeans, indeed, were
not an organized body aiming at a definite conquest of Assyrian
territory. They were rather hordes of semi-barbaric and hungry men
pushed from old homes and seeking new ones. Many of them settled in
Man, and cared not if they did have to join in the annual payment of an
Assyrian tribute. The great bulk of the migration moved on into the
Assyrian province of Parsua, which was quietly and irresistibly
overflowed and filled with a new population. Then spreading yet
farther, they went on into Media. Here was already settled a population
of closely related stock who had migrated thither at an earlier day,
and had, as we have seen, offered but a feeble resistance to the
Assyrian kings who were engaged in plundering raids. They were unable
to keep out the newcomers who quietly settled among them. Some of the
Median princes appealed to Esarhaddon for aid in keeping out the
unwelcome immigrants. The Medes had formed as yet no central
government. They had not been genuinely engrafted into the Assyrian
empire, and they were unable in any united way to oppose the new
migration. If there had been less centralized government in Assyria and
no standing army, the very soil of the ancient Assyria would
undoubtedly have been overrun. Only the disciplined forces which were
ready to oppose them wherever they appeared diverted the barbarians who
had passed eastward from Urartu into Media.

Among the Median princes who begged Esarhaddon for
help against the
engulfing wave were Uppis of Partakka, Sanasana of Partukka, and
Ramateya of Urakazabarna.324
Esarhaddon was probably glad of the invitation to interfere. He had
reason to be, for he was threatened in a twofold manner by this
migration on his eastern borders. In the very beginning he was being
deprived of control in provinces from which much tribute had been
brought, and without the payment of tribute the standing army which had
made Assyria powerful could not be kept up. Assyrian merchants would
never pay taxes for its maintenance. He was further in fear lest these
new Indo-Europeans engrafted on the old stock might make a new state
with a government of its own, central in position, ample in authority,
and strong enough to threaten its neighbors no less than to maintain
its own integrity. When that came to pass Assyria would have on the
east an enemy more dangerous than Chaldia had been on the north.
Esarhaddon's campaign to help these Median princes amounted to nothing
in its results, and we are, of course, not told how much the army
suffered in losses before it was withdrawn.

Another expedition with similar purposes was
directed against the
country of Patusharra, which Esarhaddon carefully locates between the
Bikni mountains (Demavend) and the desert, which must be the salt
desert of northern Persia. Here he took prisoners two Medo-Persian
princes named Shitir-parna and Eparna.325
There was no valuable result from this expedition also, or we had had
it set forth with much earnestness and enthusiasm by Esarhaddon. That
he was alarmed by these easterly migrations is beyond doubt.

The nomads could not pierce the ancient land nor
approach to Nineveh
itself; the armies were too strong and the fortified outposts too
numerous for that. They were, however, quickly over spreading a rich
and valuable country which the Assyrians had tried to conquer, and had
partially succeeded in conquering, and had undoubtedly hoped to fit
fully into the empire. But the nomads were making this forever
impossible. The Assyrians armies might conquer them here and there, but
it was only along the edges of the slow moving current. The great
volume pressed behind, and the tide advanced again. Esarhaddon was at
last compelled to accept the inevitable, and watched fearfully while
the people who had been nomads as it seemed but yesterday were settled
in the valleys, engaged in agriculture, and making the first steps
toward the organization of a new state. In these days the provinces
which had been first overrun and plundered by the Assyrians, and then
organized and colonized, were taken from Assyria forever. Herein was
enacted the same drama which centuries later took place in Italy, as
the northern barbarians came southward over the mountains and seized
the plains of Lombardy. Rome could make only a feeble resistance, and a
little later even the capital went down before them. The parallel goes
even that far also, for Nineveh likewise was done to destruction
through the help of these same barbarians who now settled in her
outlying provinces.

We have traced from its first diversion in Urartu
the eastern branch
of the Indo-European migration until its settlement in the northeastern
Assyrian provinces and in Media. The western branch was vastly more
formidable in numbers and power. While the eastern branch has no
distinctive general name applied to the entire body, the western is
known under the name of the Cimmerians. From Urartu they went westward,
passing through the provinces of Assyria which had formed the kingdom
of Urartu. Assyria was undoubtedly fearful of the issue. If the head of
the stream should be diverted southward ever so little, it would be
pressed by the following masses into Mesopotamia, and no man was
farsighted enough to know the result of a situation like that. The end
of the Assyrian empire might even now be at hand. Esarhaddon must
strike the moving body a blow strong enough to sweep it farther
northward and make certain its diversion into the land of Asia Minor,
and not into Syria. He did deliver his stroke against the Cimmerians at
a place called Khubushna, in northern Cilicia. He boasts that he
conquered Teuspa, a Cimmerian, a Manda--that is, a nomad or Scythian.326 There is very
little to be
said of the victory, and the probability is that Esarhaddon had not
assaulted the main body at all, which was moving rather northwesterly,
but only one portion which had turned southward. However that may be,
the chief object of Esarhaddon's concern was achieved. The Cimmerians
moved on into Kappadokia, entering Asia Minor rather than Mesopotamia.
The little kingdoms of Meshech and Tabal fell before the tide of
migration. Assyria lost by it some fine provinces in the northwest, as
we have seen that it did in the northeast, through the invasion of the
other branch of emigrants. With the exception of these losses Assyria
suffered little. It is, however, not to be doubted that no such danger
had ever before assailed the Assyrian empire. Esarhaddon had saved it.
A weak king at this juncture would have lost all, and Assyria, a
barbarism in the robes of civilization, would have been engulfed. It is
idle to speculate on the possibilities had such been the end of the
invasion. The passing of the headship of the Semitic races from Assyria
must have had momentous consequences. The passing of the leadership in
western Asia from Semitic to Indo-European hands was clearly impending,
but it was now postponed through the energy, the foresight, and ability
of Esarhaddon. Even if his name had not been enrolled among the
greatest of Assyrian kings by the conquest and annexation of Egypt, he
would have deserved the position by the deliverance from the Cimmerians
and their eastern fellows in these very threatening days.

The ill arrangement and the fragmentary character of
the Esarhaddon
texts leave us much in doubt concerning the latest events of his reign.
He took the city of Arzania, in the Syrian desert,327 in one of his later
campaigns, though we do not know just what led to the attack.

In 669 a rebellion of some kind broke out in
Assyria. We have no
knowledge of its cause or purpose, but it was put down with a strong
hand, Esarhaddon promptly causing the death of the chief men concerned
in it.328
A man of his
temperament was not likely to be lenient in such matters.

In 668 he undertook a campaign into Egypt. We are
not well informed
as to the cause of this, for our knowledge of it rests not on any of
Esarhaddon's own inscriptions, but only on the brief mention of the
Babylonian Chronicle.329
It is probable that there had already begun in Egypt the Situation
which demanded the strenuous efforts of Esarhaddon's successor.

Before he set out on this expedition he must have
felt some
premonitory symptoms which made him doubt the long continuance of his
life, for he took steps to provide for his successor. In this he may
have been influenced by a desire to spare the people, if possible, such
a chapter of difficulties as confronted him in the beginning of his own
reign. In the month of Iyyar, 668, at the great festival of Gula, he
caused to be published a proclamation commanding all the inhabitants of
Assyria, both great and small, from the upper to the lower sea, to
honor and acknowledge his son Asshurbanapal as the crown prince and
future king. This was the deed of a wise and prudent man. Unhappily he
coupled with it another provision, which was fraught with the most
awful consequences, and can only be characterized as an act of folly.
In Babylon at the same time he caused his son Shamash-shum-ukin to be
proclaimed as king of Babylon. If Asshurbanapal was to rule as king in
Assyria, and another brother was to be king in Babylon, no matter what
regulations of power or agreements of authority were arranged between
them, there was inevitably a reopening of the old difficulty, the old
jealousy and strife, between Assyria and Babylonia. Sennacherib had
felt this so severely that he had tried to terminate all disputes by
the destruction of Babylon. Esarhaddon had undone that wrong by
rebuilding the city--a colossal enterprise now nearly finished--and
from the very beginning of that great work until this proclamation of
Shamash-shum-ukin he had secured peace and at least a measure of
contentment in Babylonia. There was now strong reason to hope that by
rapid and easy intercourse between the two great sections of the
Semitic race all ancient animosities and jealousies might die out and
the countries really become one. This could only be brought about by
the possession of power in the hands of one king, by centralization, in
which, while Assyria held chief place, Babylonia should yet receive the
honor due her, because of her venerable antiquity and her great
culture. Instead of a wise provision for the continuance of the order
by which Esarhaddon was king of Assyria and shakkanak of
Babylon330--an
order that
for now twelve long years had produced and maintained peace--Esarhaddon
had provided for the return of an old order, often tried and always a
failure. Babylonia would get a taste of semi-independence and would at
once yearn for something more. The ruler set over her, be he never so
faithful to his father and to Assyria, would be forced inevitably into
rebellion or lose his head and his throne altogether. In this decision
Esarhaddon was following old oriental precedents, which have also often
been imitated since his day. He was dividing his kingdom, and there
would be shedding of blood ere the reuniting, if, indeed, it were
possible ever to achieve it.

The forebodings of Esarhaddon had been well founded.
On his way to
Egypt he fell sick, and on the tenth day of Marcheshwan, in the year
668, he died.

He had had sore trials and great difficulties. He
had endured
grievous defeats and sustained severe losses, but he had, nevertheless,
had a glorious reign. That the provinces which once paid great tribute
were lost to the Indo-Europeans upon the northeast and northwest was
less his fault than his misfortune. No king could well have done more
than he, and it is to the credit of his ability that he did not lose
much more, even the whole of Mesopotamia or even Assyria, for no army,
however well led, was of permanent value against a moving mass of men
with unknowing and unthinking thousands pressing from the rear. These
losses were far more than compensated by the gaining of. the fertile
and beautiful valley of the Nile. With this added, even though much was
lost, Esarhaddon left the Assyrian empire larger and greater than it
had ever been before. In battle and in siege, in war against the most
highly civilized peoples and in war upon barbarians, Esarhaddon had
been so successful that he must rank with Sargon and Tiglathpileser
III, and must be placed far in advance of his father, Sennacherib. In
him, in spite of mercy shown a number of times, there raged a
fierceness and a thirst for blood and revenge that remind us forcefully
of Asshurnazirpal. His racial inheritance had overcome his personal
mildness.

In works of peace no less than in war he was great
and successful.
In the city of Nineveh he restored and entirely rebuilt a great arsenal
and treasure-house which had already been restored by Sennacherib.331 At Tarbis he
began the
erection, probably somewhat late in his reign, of a great palace
intended for the occupation of his son Asshurbanapal. At Calah he also
began an immense palace, which remained unfinished when he died. The
excavated ruins reveal a ground plan of vast extent, and the
fragmentary sculptures show that the building was richly decorated and
beautified.

All these constructions, though they were numerous
enough and great
enough to have lent distinction to the reign of almost any of the kings
who had reigned before him, were comparatively insignificant by the
side of the rebuilding of Babylon. In spite of the inscriptions and the
fragments which are devoted to the celebration of this work it is
impossible to form any adequate idea of so colossal an undertaking. He
saw the city reinhabited and beginning again a glorious career, where,
at the beginning of his reign, there had been a swamp and a desert.

The last reign of great achievements in both war and
peace was over
in Assyria. The morrow would bring change and confusion. A man who had
mingled mildness and severity in unusual degree had gone out from among
men, and his sons would never be able to exhibit such qualities in
union.

CHAPTER X

THE REIGN OF ASSHURBANAPAL

WHEN Esarhaddon was dead there was no war of
succession and no
difficulty about the passing to his son of all his powers and titles.
Asshurbanapal, the Sardanapalus of the Greeks and the Latins, and the
Asnapper332
of the Old
Testament, became king in Nineveh, and his brother, Shamash-shum-ukin,
was likewise everywhere received as king of Babylon. The dual control
in the Assyrian empire began with great promise of success, though
exposed to the difficulties and dangers already enumerated.

Of this reign we have much historical material.333 Asshurbanapal
was devoted to
the collection of books, and equally interested in their production.
He. took pains that his deeds and his wars, his buildings and his very
thoughts and hopes, should be carefully written down. No inscriptions
of any previous reign are so beautifully written as his. None are so
smooth in their phrases, so glowing in their pictures, so sweeping in
their style. But the care as to form was carried so far as to obscure
at times the sense, and one wishes for the bald directness of the older
monuments. Furthermore, to our present great discomfiture, the
inscriptions are not written in annalistic form, with the events of
every year carefully blocked out by themselves. We are therefore often
at a loss to determine exactly in what year an important event took
place. The events are set forth in campaigns, and as the campaigns are
not coterminous with the years, it is impossible accurately to date
events. To add to the difficulty the Babylonian Chronicle does not help
us any longer with its brief notes of events and their exact location
in time.334
The only
dates of his reign which have come down to us beyond all doubt are,
first, the very central event of the reign, the result of the
inevitable conflict with his brother, and, secondly, the date of his
death. We are therefore deprived of any guide to the chronology of the
events, and are compelled to view them all as Asshurbanapal has
arranged them for us, in the form of campaigns. This is the more
unsatisfactory, as we have, at least in one instance, clear proof that
the order of the campaigns is logical rather than chronological.
Asshurbanapal, or rather his historiographer, has grouped them
according to a scheme along which they seemed to his mind to develop.
That this order was artificial rather than natural is shown by one
brief hint in the Babylonian Chronicle concerning an expedition to
Kirbit, a district of Elam. From Kirbit plundering hordes of men had
been sweeping down into Emutbal, which was the original home land of
Eri-Aku before he entered upon rule at Larsa. Emutbal now belonged to
Babylonia, and Asshurbanapal must defend it if possible. To discharge
this obligation he either led or sent an army against it which soon
devastated the land, "dyed the rivers with blood as one dyes wool"--the
phrase is Asshurbanapal's-and plundered the country. This expedition,
according to the Chronicles,335
took place in 667, the first full year of Asshurbanapal's reign, and
was therefore the first expedition actually begun and ended by him. In
his inscriptions,336
however, it figures as the fifth and not as the first campaign. It was,
however, of little consequence, and the momentous events of the long
and brilliant reign begin with the expeditions to Egypt.

Esarhaddon had died on the way to Egypt, and left
the necessary
expedition as a part of the inheritance to his son. When he made his
brilliant campaign in Egypt he had met with but slight resistance;
Tirhaqa had not fought at all, but had fled to Nubia. Esarhaddon did
not pursue him thither, but reorganized the administration of the
country, and left Tirhaqa to rest in his own home land. But Tirhaga
waited but a short time to gain accessions of strength, and then
entered Egypt again, which he speedily reconquered. The Assyrian
officers, petty princes, and civil servants were unceremoniously driven
from the land. Memphis was retaken, and there Tirhaga set up his court.
Egypt was in reality completely torn from Assyrian hands, and the
wonderful work of Esarhaddon undone. It was these untoward events which
caused the third Egyptian invasion by Esarhaddon, during which he died.
All these events are narrated in the inscriptions of Asshurbanapal as
though they had taken place in his own reign, and not in the last year
of his father's. He has some excuse for this, apart from the desire of
further glory for himself. He probably considered himself as the real
king from the twelfth day of Iyyar, 668, when he was proclaimed as
crown prince.

Asshurbanapal, as soon as he became king, probably
ordered the army,
which had already set out for Egypt under the leadership of his father,
to proceed. Whether he himself actually took the head or sent it on
under command of a Tartan is doubtful. The narrative is, as usual, in
the first person, and this does not prove the king's actual presence.
Before Egypt was entered Asshurbanapal received gifts and protestations
of loyalty from twenty-two princes of the seacoast, who joined forces
with him. He had not far to march before the army of Tirhaqa was met at
Karbanit, in the eastern or central part of the Delta, where it was
defeated. Tirhaqa had remained in Memphis, and as soon as he heard of
the defeat fled to Thebes. Memphis was occupied by the Assyrians
without opposition, and there were received all the princes, prefects,
and officers whom Esarhaddon had set in authority in Egypt, but who had
fled from their posts on the return of Tirhaga. They were all
reinstated and the Assyrian rule firmly established. Then, laden with
heavy plunder from the richest country of the world, the army returned
to Assyria. Whether the leaders of the army were suspicious of the
restored princes or not, or whether they had received some hint of a
conspiracy, we do not know, but they held themselves in readiness for a
recall, and did not proceed directly home.

As soon as the faithless governors thought that the
Assyrian forces
were withdrawn three of them, Sharludari of Pelusium, Pakrurn of
Pisept, and Necho of Memphis and Sais, began to plot against the
Assyrian overlordship. They sent messenger to Tirhaqa asking him to
join with them. The Assyrian generals were on the watch and caught the
bearers of the traitorous dispatches. With this clear evidence in hand
Sharludari and Necho were suddenly arrested, and only Pakruru escaped.
Three rebellious cities, Sais, Mendes, and Tanis, all in the Delta,
were taken, apparently without the striking of a blow. The inhabitants
were slain; some were flayed alive and their skins were spread on the
city walls, while the bodies of others were impaled upon stakes about
the city. So returned again in the literary days of Asshurbanapal the
hideous atrocities of the days of Asshurnazirpal. It may well be asked,
What had the centuries of progress done for the Assyrian people?
Ferocity and thirst for blood were here found in as full measure as
ever. The leaders of the rebellion, however, were much better treated.
They were carried in chains to Nineveh, where it is hardly likely that
they would be tortured to death. Two are mentioned no more, and one was
handsomely forgiven. Necho must have been a man of forceful character,
in whom Asshurbanapal recognized a servant too valuable to be lost. In
spite of his serious breach of faith he was laden with costly and
beautiful presents and returned to his rule at Sais, while his son,
Nabu-shezib-anni,337
whose Assyrian name bears witness to his father's devotion to Assyria,
was set to rule over the satrapy of Athribis, also in the Delta north
of Memphis.

These events began in 668; they were probably
entirely completed in
667, the first official year of the reign of Asshurbanapal. Egypt was
once more pacified by force, and there was some hope that this peace
might continue. Tirhaqa withdrew again to Nubia. He had long held out
against Assyria, and his heart was still hostile. Others might accept
Assyrian presents and occupy Assyrian posts, for him there was only a
longing for the revenge that never came. Death hurried him away before
there was any opportunity for another rebellion against the arch enemy
of all the west.338

When he was gone from the world of action his policy
and his hopes,
nevertheless, lived on. Shabaka had left a son, Tanut-Amon, whom the
Assyrians call Tandamani.339
He had now come to man's estate and succeeded to such rights and titles
as the unfortunate Tirhaqa, his stepfather, had to leave. With the army
of Tirhaqa, and accompanied, undoubtedly, by the good wishes of much of
Egypt, he came up from Nubia and seized Thebes. That this was so easily
accomplished is only another evidence that the real power of Assyria
was concentrated in the Delta and could hardly be said to extend much
beyond Memphis. With Thebes as a basis Tandamani advanced northward and
gained foothold in On, or Heliopolis. How long he might have held this
place in spite of attacks from the Assyrian governors in Egypt is
doubtful, but when he learned of the advance of the Assyrian army to
relieve the:-city he abandoned it and fell back to Thebes. The Assyrian
army then moved on in pursuit, and of the next event there are two
variant accounts. According to one, Tandamani fled from the city on the
approach of the army, and was overtaken and beaten at Kipkip.340 According to
the other
version, he was conquered at Thebes, which he attempted to hold.341

The campaign was probably short as well as decisive.
By it
Asshurbanapal had greatly strengthened the Assyrian hold upon Egypt,
but he, nevertheless, came far short of making it at all permanent. In
fact, the Assyrians could not hope to hold Egypt so long as a spark of
national feeling survived. To accomplish so great a feat, one or the
other, and perhaps both, of two expedients would be necessary. The
first was colonization upon a scale more extensive than had ever yet
been attempted. If tens of thousands of native-born Assyrians could
have been transported over distances so great and so exhausting and
settled in the country, these might gradually have permeated it with
new ideas of trade and commerce so thoroughly that the old national
ideas of culture and religious devotion would have given way to a
pursuit of wealth. By this means national feeling, and with it desire
for the ancient independence, would have slowly burned out. The second
expedient was a great army of occupation well distributed over the
whole country, commanded not by native princes, but by Assyrians of
undoubted loyalty, but, nevertheless, frequently changed to avoid
possible entanglements in local intrigues or incitements to overweening
personal ambition. Asshurbanapal appears not to have seriously
attempted the former plan. The latter was tried on a small scale, but
as soon as the great civil war began, which was even now brewing in
Babylonia, the troops had to be withdrawn. Necho remained a faithful
vassal to his death, but his son, Psammetichus, who succeeded him,
declared himself independent even before the year 660. The taking of
Egypt had been the most brilliant event in the reign of Esarhaddon.
From it the Assyrians had drawn great treasure, on which the standing
army had been partially maintained. In spite of trials so great a king
such as Sargon or Esarhaddon would probably have held it, but
Asshurbanapal was cast in a different mold. It was the first great loss
of his reign; others less startling were to follow. The decline of the
Assyrian empire had begun.

From his father Asshurbanapal had also inherited a
campaign against
Tyre as he had one against Egypt. We have already seen bow Esarhaddon
had besieged the city on the land side, leaving open the sea approach.
The siege was maintained steadily, but was long without result, as it
was always possible to introduce abundant provisions from the sea. But
slowly the cutting off of the land approach choked the commerce of the
sea, and Tyre fell by degrees into dire need. At last Baal deemed it
the wiser plan to yield, probably soon after the beginning of
Asshurbanapal's reign. The manner of the surrender was characteristic
of all the previous history of Tyre. He would buy the favor and pardon
of the new king. As a token of his entire submission to Assyrian
suzerainty he sent one of his daughters and a number of his nieces to
adorn the harem of Assburbanapal, and his own son, Ya11i-melek, to be
reared at the court, probably with the idea that he should be
thoroughly educated in Assyrian ideas. Asshurbanapal sent the son back,
but retained the women and the presents which had been sent with them.
The fall of Tyre is described as the third campaign342 of Asshurbanapal, but the
city must have yielded as early as 668, since we find Baal contributing
troops to the expedition against Egypt.343
At the same time Yakinlu, king of Arvad, sent his daughter to the harem
with gifts, and so indicated his submission to the new tyrant. In like
manner, also, Mukallu, a prince of Tabal, and Sandasharme of Cicilia
indicated their adherence to the empire.

In close connection with these submissions the
historiographer of
Asshurbanapal narrates with unction a curious double episode. The first
part of it represents Gyges, king of Lydia, in far-off Asia Minor,
dangerously pressed by the Cimmerians and dreaming that Asshurbanapal
could and would save him. Forthwith he dispatched an embassy to the
great king praying his assistance. When the border of Assyria was
reached the leader of the horsemen was greeted with the Assyrian
question, "Who then, art thou, stranger, thou from whose land no
courier has yet made his way?" Unable to speak Assyrian, the
ambassadors could make known their mission only by signs, but were at
last conducted to Nineveh. After much search a man was found who could
unravel the mystery and interpret the story of the dream.344 Asshurbanapal
sent no help
in visible form, but was contented with beseeching Asshur and Ishtar to
help Gyges against his adversaries. Thus assisted, Gyges attacked the
on-moving hordes, gained a great victory, and sent two captured chiefs
to Assyria as proof of the work wrought by the gods of Assyria. There
needed only that the converse should be proven, and the king's faith in
his gods would be well fortified. The opportunity for this
demonstration arose a little later when Psammetichus of Egypt had
declared his independence. Gyges gave him support, and so broke his
compact of friendship with Assyria. Asshurbanapal prayed again to his
gods, and this time not for, but against, the faithless Gyges;
whereupon the Cimmerians, whom he had easily conquered before, but were
now led by Dugdamme and thoroughly disciplined, fell on him and
possessed his entire land, while his dead body was cast out in the way
before them. His son, who inherited a broken kingdom, asked the help of
the Assyrians and their permission to occupy his heritage.345

The fourth campaign was directed against the land of
Man, where
Akhsheri was king. The circumstances which led to the invasion are not
clearly set forth, but there had probably been a rebellion against the
monotonous tribute. The land had undoubtedly received many new
inhabitants through the Indo-European invasion, and these were not
likely to bear the tribute which the previous inhabitants had borne.
The Assyrian army soon reduced the province to subjection, and the
rebellious Akhsheri was numbered among the slain. His son, Ualli,
succeeded to the throne, and upon him was laid a heavier tribute, to be
paid in horses.346

At the same time Asshurbanapal made a raid upon
Biris-Khadri, a
Median prince, and upon Sarati and Parikhia, sons of Gagi,347 prince of
Sakhi. It ended
with the taking of a few fortified cities and the deportation of the
inhabitants.348
By such
raids as this the Medes were being taught to hate the Assyrians, as the
west had long since learned to hate them.

Again in the first half of his reign had
Asshurbanapal to do with
Elam. For a long time there had been peace between the two countries.
As we have seen, the people of Elam had laid aside the old-time
hostility to the Assyrians and bad given over assisting their enemies.
Ummanaldash had not received Merodacb-baladan when he fled to him for
refuge. And, as was still more remarkable, the Assyrians had shown
great friendship and charity toward their erstwhile enemies. When a
famine arose in Elam, Esarhaddon, displaying again his merciful side,
suffered the Elamites who were in hunger to seek refuge in Babylonian
territory and permitted the export of grain to others who remained in
Elam. When the famine was past he gave a final and remarkable proof of
his friendly purposes by arranging for the return to Elam of the
temporary exiles. Such peace as this was too good for long continuance,
and now was suddenly and rudely broken. We are not informed exactly as
to the causes which induced Urtaki, king of Elam, to break the compact
of friendship by a hostile invasion of Babylonia. Asshurbanapal did not
at once repel the invaders, but delayed until they had reached Babylon
itself, when he drove them not only from Babylon, but also over the
borders into Elam.349
Urtaki soon after died, and as a natural oriental consequence there
were disturbances in his kingdom immediately afterward. His brother,
Teumman, seized the throne, dispossessing both a son of Urtaki and
another of the former king, Ummanaldash. These he tried to assassinate,
but they, with seventy relatives, made their way to the court of
Assburbanapal, who gave them refuge and refused to deliver them up when
demanded by Teumman. Teumman certainly had boldness fortified twice
over, for he entered northern Babylonia and threatened the country to
induce Asshurbanapal to deliver up the fugitives. Asshurbanapal, who
was now celebrating some religious festivals in Assyria, instead of
directly attacking and repulsing the invader, sent an army to Durilu,
the old outpost against Elam. This move cut off the direct retreat of
Teumman and compelled him to return to his capital, Susa, by a road
below the river Ulai (modern Karun). The Assyrian army then pursued,
and overtaking him before Susa, administered a telling defeat. Teumman
was taken soon afterward and killed. The remaining districts of Elam
then capitulated, and Asshurbanapal made Ummanigash, one of the
fugitives to his court, king; while his brother Tammaritu was set over
one of the Assyrian provinces.

During the progress of these two campaigns the tribe
of Gambuli was
in a state of insurrection. Bel-igisha was dead, and his sons, Dunanu
and Sam'agunu, had succeeded him. These as well as Nabu-naid and
Bel-etri, sons of Nabu-shum-eresh, had not given in their allegiance to
Assyria. On the return from Elam the victorious Assyrian army marched
through their land and destroyed Shapi-Bel, the capital city of the
Gambuli. The four chiefs were carried in chains to Nineveh.

This series of campaigns against Egypt, the west,
and the east
filled about fifteen years of the reign of Asshurbanapal. They are a
doleful catalogue of plundering raids and of attempts to crush frequent
rebellions. Asshurbanapal was holding with extreme difficulty the
empire which his fathers bad built up. There were ominous cracks in the
structure, for Egypt was likely to fall away at any time, while the
Medes were already beginning to appreciate their own strength and to
understand the weakness of Assyria. In no part of his great borders had
Asshurbanapal made any important gain to Assyrian territory. He had
introduced no new policy, and was now barely holding his own,
surrounded by dangers which menaced the continuance of the empire.

A danger greater than any other was now ready to
come to the
surface. During all these years there bad been an external peace and
calm in Babylonia. Shamash-shum-ukin had been acknowledged as king, in
accordance with his father's will, and in his hands were now the
internal affairs of Babylonia. This arrangement in the very nature of
things could not endure, for the temper of the Babylonian people was
utterly foreign to it. It might from certain points of view appear like
an almost ideal arrangement. It gave freedom in all matters of local
concern, and made it possible for the Babylonians to devote themselves
to art, literature, and science, as they had always desired. But the
Babylonian people could not be brought to any such devotion of their
talents. They remembered the days of old when theirs was the world's
chief city, and when the most sacred and solemn rites of religion were
closely knit into the framework of their civil administration. How
changed was all this! Their present ruler was the son of an Assyrian
king, and, in the opinion of their priesthood, was no properly
sanctified king at all. He was indeed no king for another reason.
Asshurbanapal was a man of such intense personality, of such
overweening pride, that there could be no king beside him.
Shamash-shum-ukin could only be an underlord in charge of the internal
affairs of a province. He was not paying tribute as similar princes in
other provinces, but in every other particular his rule was that of a
petty prince. This division of responsibilities between the two
brothers had gone on well for fifteen years. There had been unusual
peace and prosperity in Babylonia. There was entire freedom in Assyria
for the continuance of war upon rebels, and there was no reason why the
arrangement should not be continued as far as Assyria was concerned.
Let only Sham ash-shum-ukin continue to play the lesser part and all
would be well.

But Shamash-shum-ukin was ambitious.350
There was king's blood in him no less than in his elder brother, and he
aspired to be the independent king of an independent kingdom. He saw
that this could never be attained by Babylonia acting alone. He must
have aid in some form from other states, and he had nothing to offer
for their assistance. He began plotting such a series of rebellions
against Assyria as would weaken the empire and hence leave him free
from all danger of attack. The plan had elements of possible success.
He could not get succor in a bold campaign against his brother unless
he could offer gold or territory in return for the aid which he
received. But by this method he might stir up Assyrian provinces to
rebel, declaring that so they might easily win their independence. If a
sufficient number of these rebellions could be started at one time,
Assyria could not possibly put them down. Beaten on every side,
Asshurbanapal must inevitably permit Shamash-shum-ukin to set up an
independent kingdom. The aid received from the other states through
their rebellions would be indirect only, and they would have
compensation enough in their own freedom from the oppressor.

The weakness of the plan, however, far exceeded its
strength. It
was, in the first place, a plan that could not be carried on in secret,
and secrecy alone could give it a chance of success. He might easily
approach a people who thought that their present interests were rather
with Assyria, and would therefore promptly reveal the plot. Once
revealed, the Assyrians might readily evidence once more their virtue
of promptness and over. whelm the traitorous Babylonians, as they had
done before in the days of Merodach-baladan. Still further was the plan
weak in that it took no account of the consequences which might
folios-v the breaking up of the Assyrian empire. Assyria had more than
once saved Babylonia from Aramaeans or Chaldeans who threatened to
engulf the whole land. If the martial arm was now broken, Babylonia
would become the instant prey of the Chaldeans. It is difficult to
believe that a plot so fraught with dangerous consequences, involving
the possible ruin of the land, could have been hatched in a sane mind.
It is charitable to suppose that Shamash-shum-ukin had been utterly
carried away by ambition and by national pride, and had not fully
weighed the dangers which he was calling into action.

The states which he decided to attempt to draw into
rebellion almost
completely hemmed in Assyria. The first of them was Accad, the portion
of Babylonia, outside of Babylon, which still remained under Assyrian
rule. The second was the Chaldean state in the far south-the old enemy
not merely of Assyria, but also of Babylonia-and below this also the
country of the Sea Lands. To these were added the Aramaean communities
in Babylonia, Elam, and Gutium, under which last was now comprised a
great stretch of territory above the Mesopotamian valley, populated by
the Indo-Europeans who had entered it in the great migration. Finally
he roused all the west land, Syria, Palestine, and Melukhkha. Egypt was
already independent, pursuing its own way without Assyrian let or
hindrance, and therefore could not be drawn into any such
confederation.

As might have been expected in the beginning,
Asshurbanapal had
knowledge of the plot long before it was ready for execution. He did
not, however, take steps for its destruction as promptly as might have
been expected. Whether be was only playing a part or did in reality so
feel, he at least spent many words in describing his brother's
faithlessness as a breach of gratitude. He claims to have done all
manner of good deeds for him, and even declares that it was he who gave
him the throne, though we have already seen that this act of folly was
really done by Esarhaddon. His words have an air of solemn sincerity,
and are characteristic of the general tenor of the records of his
reign: "In those days Shamash-shum-ukin, a faithless brother, to whom I
had done good, whom I had established in the kingship over Babylon, for
whom . . . the insignia of royalty I had made and presented; warriors,
horses, chariots had I brought together and placed in his hands;
cities, fields, gardens, and they who dwelt in them . . . had I given
him. But lie forgot the grace I had wrought for him. . . ."351 It is a
curious plaint for a
king. It might have been expected that Assburbanapal would have made
even the suspicion of a plot excuse sufficient for an invasion of
Babylonia and a severe castigation of his brother. He waited, however,
until the breach of peace should come from the brother, hoping thereby,
probably, to justify himself to the Babylonians as the maker of peace,
and not its breaker, when the civil war was over.

Shamash-shum-ukin struck the first blow, being
probably driven to it
by the discovery of the plot. He first seized Ur and Uruk, which had
Assyrian governors and were directly under the control of
Asshurbanapal. He assumed the titles king of Sumer and Accad and king
of Amnanu. He added to this high-handed breach of allegiance a notice
to Asshurbanapal that he must no longer offer in Babylon and Borsippa
the annual sacrifices which he had been giving as the suzerain of
Babylon. He must not offer in Sippar to the god Shamash, nor in Kutha
to the god Nergal. These cities were then seized, as Ur and Uruk had
been, and fortified. Still Asshurbanapal did not attack, waiting now
until he should receive from the gods some favorable omen. The omen
came in the night, when it was far spent. He saw in a dream the moon
bearing an inscription wherein was threatened all manner of famine,
wrath, and death against anyone who should plot against Asshurbanapal.
He need no longer delay. The army is set in motion and the border
crossed. Shamashshum-ukin dare not meet that army in open battle; his
only hope was successful defense in the siege which soon must come. He
had doubtless hoped for aid from some of his fellow-conspirators, but
all failed him but one. This was Ummanigash, king of Elam, who was won
over by a present. His act was an act of ingratitude as well as of
hostility, for he owed his throne to Asshurbanapal's appointment. The
absence of Ummanigash in Babylonia gave the favorable opportunity for a
rebellion in Elam, in which his family was driven out and his brother,
Tammaritu, seized the throne. This was a favorable move for Assyria, as
it compelled the withdrawal from Babylonia of the Elamite troops.
Tammaritu, however, was also no friend of Assyria, and desired rather
to make himself an ally of Babylonia. As soon, therefore, as he felt
himself secure he likewise sent help to Shamash-shum-ukin.352 At once the
old swing of the
pendulum began in Elam. Another rebellion broke out, Tammaritu was
driven from the country, and Indabigash became king of Elam.353 Tammaritu, as
Teumman before
him, sought refuge in Assyria, and Indabigash refused to have any share
in the insurrection of Shamashshum-ukin. The quickness with which these
two Elamite rebellions had followed each other, and the manner in which
they had finally played into the hands of Asshurbanapal, induce us to
believe that he was the real cause of the second at least, if not also
of the first.

The withdrawal of the Elamite support left
Shamash-shum-ukin in a
sorry plight. He had, indeed, a few troops sent from Arabia, but these
were of slight weight. From the west there was no help at all, nor did
the Aramaeans of Babylonia or the Chaldeans give aid. Shamash-shumukin
held out as long as possible when besieged. At last he was conquered by
hunger and disease. So awful was the suffering in Babylon that human
flesh was used for food. When despair depressed all minds
Shamash-shum-ukin committed suicide by causing himself to be burned354 as a
sacrifice to the people
who had suffered so much for his folly. When the gates were opened and
Asshurbanapal entered the rebellious cities there was enacted an orgy
of wrath and ferocity. Soldiers who had fought under the orders of
Shamash-shum-ukin were adjudged to have spoken against Asshur and the
great king of Assyria whom he had set up. Their tongues were torn from
their mouths, and the bodies of their fellows who had died in the siege
were cast out, to be devoured by wild beasts and carrion-eating birds.
To supply the places of those in Babylon who were given over to
horrible deaths men were brought from Kutha and Sippar.

Asshurbanapal bad pacified the land of Babylonia as
his ancestors
would have done; he had given to it the silence of death. There
remained only that he should devise now some method by which it could
be governed. He decided to have no more government which might tend to
a rupture between the two kingdoms, and so had himself proclaimed king
under the name of Kandalanu,355
adopting for Babylonia a different name, as Tiglathpileser III and
Shalmaneser IV had done before him. The first year of his reign in
Babylonia, according to the Canon of Ptolemy, was 647 B. C.356

As soon as these matters were arranged he invaded
the south and
punished the Chaldeans, the Aramaeans, and the people of the Sea Lands
who had given in their pledge to Shamash-shum-ukin to join in a general
rebellion against Assyria. The yoke of bondage was put upon them,
Assyrian governors set over them, and they were commanded to pay a
regular annual tribute. In this Asshurbanapal gained a distinct
advantage, for the territory was now more fully in his hands than it
had been since the beginning of his reign.357

Now that all Babylonia as far south as the Persian
Gulf was entirely
in a state of peace and no more uprisings were to be feared,
Asshurbanapal determined likewise to punish Elam for having twice
assisted the Babylonians in their rebellion. It is true that Indabigash
had kept the peace until now with Assyria, but the country must suffer
for the madness of its former kings. An. other rebellion had broken out
in Elam in which Indabigash had fallen and in his place Ummanaldash,
son of Attumetu, had become king. There is no certain proof that this
Attumetu was the same person as he who led a part of the army which
Ummanigash had sent to the assistance of Shamash-shum-ukin, but the
names are the same and the time fits the identity. If they are the
same, we may perhaps see in Ummanaldash a man who was made king by the
party which sympathized with the Babylonians, and was therefore hostile
to Indabigash, who had been pro-Assyrian in his acts, until just before
the end of his reign. He had then offended Asshurbanapal by harboring
Nabu-bel-shume, a descendant of Merodach-baladan. The latter was in the
true line of his family in giving much trouble to the Assyrians. He had
received from Asshurbanapal some Assyrian troops to protect his
country-the Sea Lands-from Elamite invasion during the war with
Shamashshum-ukin. Nabu-bel-shume had at first played the part of a
devoted friend of Assyria, and at the same time had laid his plans to
destroy the faithfulness of his Assyrian guard, win them over to
himself, and with this added force prepare to seize what advantage he
could when Shamash-shumukin won his independence. The issue did not
fall out that way, and he was compelled to flee his country and seek
refuge in Elam, whither Merodach-baladan had fled before him.

Before the death of Indabigash Asshurbanapal had
demanded of him the
surrender of the fugitive Nabu-bel-shume and his renegade Assyrians.
Indabigash refused, and Asshurbanapal threatened war. Before he reached
Elam with his armies Indabigash was dead and Ummanaldash was on the
throne.358
With him the
case was no better. If he was not actually made king, because of his
hostility to Assyria, as suggested above, he was in any case as
unfriendly as the anti-Assyrian party could desire. In spite,
therefore, of the change of rulers in Elam Asshurbanapal pressed on and
took BitI1nbi, a fortification on the borders. Ummanaldash was too new
to the throne to be able to turn attention to an invasion, and needed
his strength to ward off another possible insurrection at home, in
which he might lose his life, as had his predecessors. He therefore
forsook his chief city; Madaktu, and fled into the mountains, to a
place known as Dur-Undasi, before which flowed the river Ididi
(probably the Disful). The river formed a natural defense, and here
Ummanaldash fortified himself as best he might. Asshurbanapal followed,
taking the cities one by one as he went, that no dangers might be left
in the rear. At last Madaktu fell, and with the other cities between it
and the Ididi was thrown down and burned. When the Ididi was reached
the river was at flood, and there was a strong reluctance in the army
to attempt it. Their fears were overcome by a dream granted to the
whole army, in which Ishtar of Arbela spoke and said, " I go before
Asshurbanapal, the king, whom mine hands have created." It is
interesting to observe how frequently omens, visions, and dreams figure
in the records of this latter-day Assyrian king, and how very
infrequent they are before his day. Thus encouraged, the troops crossed
and Dur-Undasi was taken, but Ummanaldash escaped into the mountains.
Thereupon the whole land was devastated. Susa, the ancient capital, was
taken, and in its palace Asshurbanapal began a work of pillage which it
would be difficult to parallel in all the earlier records. From the
treasuries were brought forth the gold and silver which the kings of
Elam, following Assyrian exemplars, had plundered in raids into
Babylonia and elsewhere. Precious stones and costly woolen stuffs,
chariots and wagons, horses and animals of various kinds, were sent
away to Assyria. The temple, honored and endowed for ages, was broken
open and the gods and goddesses with all their treasures were added to
the moving mass of plunder. Thirty-two statues of kings wrought in
gold, silver, and copper were carried away to Assyria to be added to
the glories of the great conquest. Then the mausoleum of the kings was
violated in order that even the bones of dead monarchs who vexed
Assyria might be carried into the land which they had hated. In the
end, when all that might add wealth to Assyria had been taken away, the
entire land was left a smoking ruin, from which, in the very phrases of
the ruthless destroyer, had been taken away "the voice of men, the
tread of cattle and sheep, and the sound of happy music." Such is the
record of a campaign led by a civilized monarch, who prided himself on
his love of learning. The savagery of Assyria was not dead, but in full
vigor; dormant at times it had been, and the acts of some kings had
seemed to promise amendment and a serious desire to build up rather
than to destroy. These purposes were more clearly shown in
Tiglathpileser III and in Esarhaddon than in any other kings, but even
they are limited by their base racial instincts. In Asshurbanapal's
campaign the worst elements had again come to the surface.359

It is difficult to see how any national life could
survive a ruin
such as this, but Elam was not yet quite dead. Ummanaldash returned to
Madaktu when the Assyrians had withdrawn, and sat down amid the ruins.
To the last he remained faithful to Nabu-bel-shume, who had continued
with him. Learning that they were together, Asshurbanapal sent an
embassy to demand his surrender. Nabubel-shume, thus hounded to death,
and looking over a land which had been ruined at least partly for his
sake, ordered his armor-bearer to run him through. Worn out with
fruitless opposition, Ummanaldash sent the body of the dead man and the
head of the armor-bearer who had slain him to Asshurbanapal. Again the
brutality of the man was shown. He cut off the head from the dead body
and suspended it about the neck of one of Shamash-shum-ukin's
followers, and commanded that the poor body should not receive even the
honor of a burial.360

In the western part of Elam Pa'e had attempted to
gain a position
and set up a new kingdom, to control a part of the now ruined land. But
an army dispatched against him brought him quickly to his senses. He
came to Assyria and offered his allegiance and submission to
Asshurbanapal. Soon afterward Ummanaldash lost the throne and was
captured by the Assyrians.

So ended the dealings of King Asshurbanapal with the
neighboring
states, whose civilization was at least as old as that of Assyria, and
whose treatment of other nations was not so bad. He did not attempt to
supply the land with a new government and with the blessings of good
administration, as Tiglathpileser III would have done. He was content
to have deprived it of all possible opportunity of interfering with his
own plans by further alliance with rebels in Babylonia. The policy was
singularly deficient in farsightedness; it is indeed to be properly
characterized as folly. A castigation of Elam may have been necessary
from the Assyrian point of view, but its obliteration was stupidity. It
formed a good buffer state against the Indo-European population of
Media, and should have been made an ally against the new power which
must soon become an important factor in the politics of western Asia.
Instead of this Asshurbanapal had only opened a way over which the
destroyers might march when their hour should come.

In close connection with the Elamite campaigns, and
perhaps at the
same time, Asshurbanapal undertook the punishment of the Arabians for
the assistance, direct and indirect, which. they had given to
Shamash-shum-ukin. In the extreme northern part of the Arabian
peninsula was the kingdom of Aribi, which has often before appeared in
the Assyrian story. Yauta, son of Hazael, who ruled in it along with
Queen Adiya, had doubly aided Shamash-shum-ukin. He had, according to
compact, seized an entire independence for his little kingdom, and with
that had also captured a number of localities in Arabia, Edom, Yabrud,
Beth-Ammon, the Hauran, Moab, Sa'arri, Khargi, and Subiti.361 In these
places he had
settled some of his Arabic hordes who were clamoring for space for
expansion beyond his own narrow borders. This movement was an indirect
aid to Shamash-shum-ukin of the greatest value, and if similar
movements had taken place elsewhere as planned, the empire must have
fallen to pieces under the combined assault. Furthermore, Yauta had
rendered direct help of first-rate importance by sending an army of
Kedarenes (Assyrian, Kadri or Kidri) under the command of two sheikhs,
Abiyate and Ayamu. These Kedarenes were driven from Babylonia, and at
least one of their leaders was taken. The Arabian settlers were in
every case overwhelmed by the local Assyrian troops. The help had
indeed availed little for Shamash-shum-ukin, but only because there had
been no help from other points whence it had been expected. Yauta fled
into the small kingdom of Nabatheans, and Uaite, a nephew of his,
gained the throne in Aribi. He dared oppose the Assyrians who came to
take revenge for the assistance which his predecessor had given to the
Babylonian rebellion. He was captured, bound in chains like a dog,
placed in a cage, and carried to Assyria to be set at a door as one
might set a watchdog.362
To such petty and disgusting forms of punishment had an Assyrian king
descended.

As a part of the same campaign Asshurbanapal took
vengeance also
upon Ammuladi, a sheikh of the Kedarenes, because they had been the men
sent to Babylonia by the former king of Aribi, on whom they were
dependent. Ammuladi had sought refuge in Palestine, where he was
conquered and taken. Adiya, the queen of Aribi, was also taken, and
Abiyate made king of Aribi.

Abiyate held this post but a short time. The events
which led to his
removal are not quite clear, but it seems probable that he made some
arrangement with Uaite, the son of Bir-Dadda, who had declared himself
king of Aribi, for later Abiyate appears as sheikh of the Kedarenes.

A new alliance against Asshurbanapal was soon
formed, composed of
Natnu, king of the Nabatheans; Uaite, king of Aribi; and Abiyate,
prince of the Kedarenes. The union of these three was a matter of no
mean concern, and Asshurbanapal may well have been stirred by it. He
led an army into the wilds of Arabia, but did not penetrate into the
territory of the Nabatheans. All the conspirators save Natnu were
captured and taken to Assyria.

On the return from this campaign the cities of Ushu,
belonging to
the territory of Sidon, and Akko, which had joined in a rebellion, were
severely punished.363

One more word only concerning the external relations
of Assyria
stands written in the records of Asshurbanapal, and it is of peace and
not of war. King Sarduris of Urartu sent to Asshurbanapal messengers
bearing presents and words of friendliness.364
Urartu was once more strong enough to maintain some sort of
independence. Assyria had abandoned its attempts to wreck the little
kingdom, and the two were friendly neighbors. They needed so to be, for
each required the help of the other in warding off the Indo-European
invasion that could riot much longer be postponed. Urartu must soon
fall a victim, and the danger to Assyria was scarcely less great.

The Cimmerian swarms who had overwhelmed Gyges, and
then possessed
the fertile plains and valleys of Asia Minor as far as Sardes, returned
later upon their course and harassed the borders of the weakened empire
of Asshurbanapal. When Dugdamme365
was dead his son, Sandakshatra, was still able to control and
discipline his followers and hurl them against the Assyrian outposts.
Their menace lasted unto the very end of the great king's days.366

The closing years of Asshurbanapal's long and
laborious reign were
largely spent in works of peace. Even during the stormy years he had
had great interest in the erection of buildings and the collection and
copying of books for his library. In such congenial tasks his later
days were chiefly spent.

It is not possible to determine in every case where
the buildings
were located which lie rebuilt or otherwise beautified. The temple of
E-kur-galkurra, in Nineveh, he adorned magnificently and supplied with
a new statue of the god. The temple of E-sagila, in Babylon, which
Sennacherib had destroyed and Esarhaddon partially rebuilt, lie
completed. and restored to it with elaborate pomp and ceremony the god
Marduk and his consort Zarpanit, whom Sennacherib had carried into
Assyria. The temple of E-zida, in. Borsippa, also received new
ornaments. Long lists of colossal works elsewhere in Babylon, in
Arbela, in many a lesser place, which be carried on, have come down to
us. Above all these works stood the reconstruction of the vast palace
in Nineveh, occupied during his life by Sennacherib. From the
foundation stone to the roof was this rebuilt in a style of
magnificence never seen before.367

In this palace he lived when war did not call him,
and here he
slowly gathered his great library -the chief pride of his life. The two
kingdoms were ransacked for the clay books which had been written in
days gone by. Works of grammar, of lexicography, of poetry, history,
science, and religion were brought from ancient libraries in Babylonia.
They were carefully copied in the Assyrian style, with notes
descriptive, chronological, or explanatory, by the scholars of the
court, and the copies were preserved in the palace, while the originals
went back to the place whence they were borrowed. The library thus
formed numbered many thousands of books. In it the scholars, whom
Asshurbanapal patronized so well, worked carefully on in the writing of
new books on all the range of learning of the day. Out of an atmosphere
like that came the records of Asshurbanapal's own reign. Small wonder
is it that under such conditions his historical inscriptions should be
couched in a style finished, elegant, and rhythmical, with which the
bare records of fact of previous reigns may not be compared at all.

In the year 626 Asshurbanapal died, and the kingdom
which he left
was very unlike the kingdom which he had received of his father. It
was, indeed, still the chief power of western Asia, but it was not the
only power. The day of its unparalleled glory and honor was past. Its
borders had shrunk sadly, for Egypt was lost, Urartu was independent,
Syria and Palestine were almost at liberty, and the northeastern
provinces were slowly but surely casting in their lot with the Manda.
The reign of Asshurbanapal had been one of unexampled glory in the arts
and vocations of peace. The temples were larger, more beautiful, more
rich in storied liturgy. Science, whether astronomy or mathematics, had
reached a higher point than in the history of man before. The
literature of Assyria, though laden with a cumbrous system of writing
and a monumental style which was inherited from the age when slabs of
stone were the only writing material, had, nevertheless, under royal
patronage taken on a marvelous development. Books of song and story, of
religion and of law, of grammar and of lexicography, were produced in
extraordinary numbers and of remarkable style and execution. The pride
of the Assyrians swelled as they looked on all these things, and saw
beside them the marvelous material prosperity which likewise had
exceeded all the old bounds. The Assyrian trader was in all lands, and
his wealth was growing apace. In all these things Asshurbanapal had
marched in advance of his predecessors.

In war only had he failed. But by the sword the
kingdom of Assyria
had been founded, by the sword it had added kingdom unto kingdom until
it had become a world empire. By the sword it had cleared the way for
the advance of its trader, and opened up to civilization great
territories, some of which, like Urartu, had even adopted its method of
writing. It had held all the vast empire together by the sword, and not
by beneficent and unselfish rule. Even unto this very reign barbaric
treatment of men who yearned for liberty had been the rule and not the
exception. That which had been founded by the sword and maintained by
the sword would not survive if the sword lost its keenness or the arm
which wielded it lost its strength or readiness. This had happened in
the days of Asshurbanapal. He had conquered but little new territory,
made scarcely any advance, as most, of the kings who preceded him had
done. He had not only not made distinct advances, he had actually
beaten a retreat, and the empire was smaller. Worse than even this, he
had weakened the borders which remained, and had not erected
fortresses, as had Sargon and Esarhaddon and even Sennacherib, for the
defense of the frontier against aggression. He had gained no new
allies, and had shown no consideration or friendship for any people who
might have been won to join hands with Assyria when the hour of
struggle between the Semites and the Indo-Europeans should come. On the
contrary, his brutality, singularly unsuited to his period and his
position of growing weakness, his bloodthirstiness, his destructive
raids into the territories of his neighbors, had increased the hatred
of Assyria into a passion. All these things threatened the end of
Assyrian prestige, if not the entire collapse of the empire.

The culture which Asshurbanapal had nurtured and
disseminated was
but a cloak to cover the nakedness of Assyrian savagery. It never
became a part of the life of the people. It contributed not to national
patriotism, but only to national enervation. Luxury had usurped the
place of simplicity and weakness had conquered strength. The most
brilliant color of all Assyrian history was only overlaid on the palace
and temple walls. The shadows were growing long and deep, and the night
of Assyria was approaching.

CHAPTER XI

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA

ASSHURBANAPAL had maintained internal peace in his
empire, and the
prosperity which Nineveh had enjoyed was conducive to a quiet passing
of the succession. He was followed by his son, Asshur-etil-ili-ukinni,
who is also known by the shortened form of his name as Asshur-etil-ili.
Of his reign we possess only two inscriptions. The first occurs in a
number of copies, and reads only, "I am Asshur-etil-ili, king of
Kisshati, king of Assyria, son of Asshurbanapal, king of Kisshati, king
of Assyria. I caused bricks to be made for the building of E-zida in
Calah, for the life of my soul I caused them to be made."368 The second
gives his titles
and genealogy in the same manner, and adds a note concerning the
beginning of his reign, but it is not now legible. Besides these two
texts there remain only a few tablets found at Nippur dated in the
second and the fourth years of his reign.369
These latter show that as late as the fourth year of his reign he still
held the title of king of Sumer and Accad, and therefore continued to
rule over a large portion of Babylonia, if not over the city of Babylon
itself.

The ruined remains of his palace at Calah have been
found, and it
forms a strange contrast to the imposing work of Sargon. Its rooms are
small and their ceilings low; the wainscoting, instead of fine
alabaster richly carved, was formed only of slabs of roughly cut
limestone, and it bears every mark of hasty construction.370

We have no other remains of his reign, nor do we
know how long it
continued. Assyrian records terminate suddenly in the reign of
Asshurbanapal, in which we reach at once the summit and the end of
Assyrian carefulness in recording the events of reigns and the passage
of time. It is, of course, possible that there may be buried somewhere
some records yet unfound of this reign, but it is certain that they
must be few and unimportant, else would they have been found in the
thoroughly explored chambers in which so many royal historical
inscriptions have been discovered. It may seem strange at first that an
abundant mass of inscription material for this reign should not have
been produced; that, in other words, a period of extraordinary literary
activity should be suddenly followed by a period in which scarcely
anything beyond bare titles should be written. But this is not a
correct statement of the case. The literary productivity did not cease
with Asshur-etil-iliukinni. It had already ceased while Asshurbanapal
was still reigning. The story, as above set forth, shows that we have
no knowledge off the later years of his reign. The reign of
Asshur-etil-iliukinni only continued the dearth of record which the
later years of Asshurbanapal had begun. As in some other periods of
Assyrian history, there was indeed but little to tell. In his later
days Asshurbanapal had remained quietly in Nineveh, interested more in
luxury and in his tablets or books than in the salvation of his empire.
In quietness somewhat similar the reign of his successor probably
passed away. He had no enthusiasm and no ability for any new conquests.
He could not really defend that which he already had. The air must have
been filled with rumors of rebellion and with murmurs of dread
concerning the future. The future was out of his power, and he could
only await, and not avert, the fate of Assyria. It did not come in his
reign, and the helpless empire was handed on to his successor.

There is doubt as to who the next king of Assyria
may have been.
Mention is found of a certain king whose name was Sin-shum-lishir, who
must have reigned during this period, and perhaps it was he who
followed the son of Asshurbanapal upon the throne. Whether that be true
or not, we have no word of his doings.

The next king of Assyria known to us was
Sinshar-ishkun. He had come
to the throne in sorry times, and that he managed for some years to
keep some sort of hold upon the falling empire is at least surprising.
No historical inscription, in the proper sense of the word, has come
down to us from his reign. One badly broken cylinder,371 for which
there are some
fragmentary duplicates, has been found in which there are the titles
and some words of empty boasting concerning the king's deeds. Besides
this we have only three brief business documents found in Babylonia.372 These are,
however, very
interesting because they are dated two of them in Sippar and the third
in Uruk. The former belong to the second year of the king's reign and
the latter to the seventh year. From this interesting discovery it
appears that for seven years at least Sin-shar-ishkun was acknowledged
as king over a portion of Babylonia, though the city of Babylon was not
included in this district.

We have no knowledge of the events of his reign
based on a careful
record, as we have bad before, and what little we do know is learned
chiefly from the Babylonian inscriptions. The Greeks and Latins
contradict each other so sharply, and are so commonly at variance with
facts, amply substantiated in Babylonian documents, that very little
can be made out of them. It is a fair inference from the records of
Nabonidus, whose historiographers have written carefully of this
period, that Sin-shar-ishkun was a man of greater force than his
predecessor. He already possessed a part of Babylonia, and desired to
make his dominion more strong and compact, and also wished to increase
it by taking from the new Chaldean empire, of which there is much to be
told later, some of its fairest portions. Nabopolassar was now king of
Babylon, and Sin-shar-ishkun invaded the territory of Babylonia when
Nabopolassar was absent from his capital city carrying on some kind of
campaign in northern Mesopotamia directed against the Subaru. This cut
off the return of Nabopolassar, and brought even Babylon itself into
danger. What was to be done in order to save his capital but secure
allies from some quarter who could assist in driving out the Assyrians?
The campaign of Nabopolassar had won for him the title of king of
Kisshati, which he uses in 609, at which time he was in possession of
northern Mesopotamia. It was probably this year or the year before (610
or 609) that Sin-shar-ishkun attacked the Babylonian provinces.
Nabopolassar found it very difficult to secure an ally who would give
aid without exacting too heavy a price. If Elam had still been a strong
country, it would have formed the natural ally, as it had been
traditionally the friend of the Chaldeans. But Elam was a waste land.
The only possible hope was in the north and west. To the Umman-Manda
must he go for help. At the time of Nabopolassar, and also as late as
Nabonidus, the word Manda was used generally as a term for the nomadic
peoples of Kurdistan and the far northeastern lands. The Babylonians,
indeed, knew very little of these peoples. The Assyrians had come very
closely into touch with them at several times since the days of
Esarhaddon. They had felt the danger which was threatened by the growth
of a new power on their borders, and they had suffered the loss of a
number of fine provinces through it. This new power was Indo-European,
and the people who founded and led it are confused by the Greek
historians of a later day with the Medes. To appeal to the Manda for
help in driving out the Assyrians from Babylonia was nothing short of
madness. There were many points of approach between Babylonia and
Assyria, there were many between Assyria and Chaldea. There was no good
reason why these two peoples should not unite in friendship and prepare
to oppose the further extension of the power of the Manda. The
Assyrians certainly knew that the Manda coveted Assyria and the great
Mesopotamian valley, and the Babylonians might easily have learned this
if they did not already know it.

But Nabopolassar either did not know of the plans
and hopes of the
Manda, or, knowing them, hoped to divert them from himself against
Assyria, and he ventured to invite their assistance. They came not for
the profit of Nabopolassar, the Chaldeans, and Babylonia, but for their
own aggrandizement. Sin-shar-ishkun and his Assyrian army were driven
back from northern Babylonia into Assyria, and Nabopolassar at once
possessed himself of the new provinces. The Manda pushed on after the
Assyrians, retreating toward Nineveh. Between them there could only be
the deepest hostility. In the forces of the Manda or Scythians373 there must be
inhabitants of
provinces which had been ruthlessly ravaged by Assyrian conquerors.
They had certainly old grievances to revenge, and were likely to spare
not. There is evidence in abundance that Assyria was hated all over
western Asia, and probably also in Egypt. For ages she had plundered
all peoples within the range of her possible influence. Everywhere that
her name was known it was execrated. The voice of the Phoenician cities
is not heard as it is lifted in wrath and hatred against the great city
of Nineveh, but a Hebrew prophet, Nahum, utters the undoubted feeling
of the whole Western world when, in speaking of the ruin of Assyria, he
says, 11 All that hear the bruit of thee [the report of
thy fall] clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy
wickedness passed continually?"374

Nabopolassar did not join with the Manda in the
pursuit of the
Assyrians, for he was anxious to settle and fix his own throne and
attend to the reorganization of the provinces which were now added to
the empire. If the Manda had needed help, they might easily have
obtained it, for many a small or great people would gladly have joined
in the undoing of Nineveh for hatred's sake or for the sake of the vast
plunder which must have been stored in the city. For centuries the
whole civilized world had paid unwilling tribute to the great city, and
the treasure thus poured into it had not all been spent in the
maintenance of the standing army. Plunder beyond dreams of avarice was
there heaped up awaiting the despoiler. The Manda would be willing to
dare single-handed an attack on a city which thus promised to enrich
the successful. The Babylonians, or rather the Chaldeans, had given up
the race, content to secure what might fall to them when Assyria was
broken by the onslaught of the Manda. It will later appear in this
narrative that Egypt was anxious to share in the division of the spoil
of Assyria, and actually dispatched an expedition northward. This step
was, however, taken too late, and the Egyptians were not on the ground
until the last great scene was over. The unwillingness of Nabopolassar
and the hesitancy or delay of other states left the Manda alone to take
vengeance upon Assyria. Whether the fleeing Assyrians made a stand at
any point before falling back upon the capital or not we do not know.
If they did, they were defeated and at last were compelled to take
refuge in the capital city. The Manda began a siege. The memory which
the Greeks and Latins handed down from that day represented the
Assyrians as so weak that they would fall an easy prey to any people.
This was certainly erroneous. There is a basis of truth for the story
of weakness, for there were evident signs of decay during the reign of
Asshurbanapal. These had, however, not gone so far as to make the power
of Assyria contemptible. Weakened though the empire had been by the
loss of the northern provinces through the great migrations, and
weakened though it had been by the loss of Egypt, and weakened though
it had been by the terrible civil war between Asshurbanapal and
Shamash-shum-ukin, it was still the greatest single power in the world.
It had, indeed, lost the power of aggression which had swept over
mountain and valley, but in defense it would still be a dangerous
antagonist.

When the Scythian forces came up to the walls of
Nineveh they found
before them a city better prepared for defense375
than any had probably ever been in the world before. The vast walls
might seem to defy any engines that the semi-barbaric hordes of the new
power could bring to bear. Within was the remnant of an army which had
won a thousand fields. If the army was well managed and the city had
had some warning of the approaching siege, it would be safe to predict
that the contest must be long and bloody. The people of Nineveh must
feel that not only the supremacy of western Asia, but their very
existence as an independent people, was at stake. The Assyrians would
certainly fight with the intensity of despair. We do not know,
unfortunately, the story of that memorable siege. A people civilized
for centuries was walled in by the forces of a new people fresh,
strong, invincible. Then, as often in later days, civilization went
down before barbarism. Nineveh fell into the hands of the Scythians.
Later times preserved a memory that Sin-shar-ishkun perished in the
flames of his palace, to which he had committed himself when he foresaw
the end.376

The city was plundered of everything of value which
it contained,
and then given to the torch. The houses of the poor, built probably of
unburnt bricks, would soon be a ruin. The great palaces, when the cedar
beams which supported the upper stories had been burnt off, fell in
heaps. Their great, thick walls, built of unburnt bricks with the outer
covering of beautiful burnt bricks, cracked open, and when the rains
descended the unburnt bricks soon dissolved away into the clay of which
they had been made. The inhabitants had fled to the four winds of
heaven and returned no more to inhabit the ruins. A Hebrew prophet,
Zephaniah, a contemporary of the great event, has described this
desolation as none other: "And he will stretch out his hand against the
north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry
like the wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of her, all
the beasts of the nations: both the pelican and the porcupine shall
lodge in the chapiters thereof: their voice shall sing in the windows;
desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the cedar
work. This is the joyous city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her
heart, I am, and there is none else beside me: how is she become a
desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! everyone that passeth by
her shall hiss, and wag his hand."377
Nineveh fell in the year 607 or 606, and the waters out of heaven, or
from the overflowing river made the soft clay into a covering over the
great palaces and their records. The winds bore seeds into the mass,
and a carpet of grass covered the mounds, and stunted trees grew out of
them. Year by year the mound bore less and less resemblance to the site
of a city, until no trace remained above ground of the magnificence
that once had been. In 401 B. C. a cultivated Greek378 leading homeward the
fragment of his gallant army of ten thousand men passed by the mounds
and never knew that beneath them lay the palaces of the great Assyrian
kings. In later ages the Parthians built a fortress on the spot, which
they, called Ninus, and other communities settled either above the
ruins or near to them.379
Men must have homes, and the ground bore no trace of the great city
upon which dire and irreparable vengeance had fallen. But, though
cities might be built upon the soil and men congregate where the
Assyrian cities had been, there was in reality no healing of the wound
which the Manda had given. The Assyrian empire had come to a final end.
As they had done unto others so had it been done unto them. For more
than a thousand years of time the Assyrian empire had. endured. During
nearly all of this vast period it had been building and increasing. The
best of the resources of the world had been poured into it. The
leadership of the Semitic race had belonged to it, and this was now
yielded up to the Chaldeans, who had become the heirs of the
Babylonians, from whom the Assyrians had taken it.

It remained only to parcel out, along with the rest
of the plunder,
the Assyrian territory. The Manda secured at this one stroke the old
territory of Assyria, together with all the northern provinces as far
west as the river Halys, in Asia Minor. To the Chaldeans, who were now
masters in Babylonia, there came the Mesopotamian possessions and, as
we shall later see, the Syro-phoenician likewise. By this change of
ownership the Semites retained the larger part of the territory over
which they had long been masters, but the Indo-Europeans had made great
gains. A life-and-death struggle would soon begin between them for the
possession of western Asia.

BOOK IV

THE HISTORY OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE

CHAPTER I

THE REIGN OF NABOPOLASSAR

WHEN Asshurbanapal died, in 626, he left, as we have
already seen,
an empire sadly weakened and far departed from its ancient glory. He
had, in. deed, held together the main body of it, but the outer
provinces had mostly fallen away. He had left in the world many enemies
of Assyria and sadly few friends. He had held Babylonia to the empire
after displaying such fierceness in the punishment of its rebels as
made them unable to rise again during his lifetime. Up to his death he
reigned as king in Assyria under the name of Asshurbanapal, and in
Babylon as Kandalanu.380
The hour of his death was the signal for the preparation of a new
revolt in Babylonia. This was inevitable. The Babylonians had hated
Assyrian rule since the conciliatory policy of Esarhaddon had ceased,
and were ready for any attempt which might promise to restore to them
the prestige they once possessed and to their city the primacy of the
world. To achieve such marvels of history there was no further strength
in themselves. We have seen long since the decay of the real Babylonian
people, who had early ceased to be Semites of pure blood. But the very
intermixing of other fresh blood had kept them alive as an entity,
though it had almost entirely destroyed their identity. The
reinforcement of life which came to them from the Kassites had kept
awake in them a national separateness, when without it they would
almost certainly have been swallowed up and lost, as other peoples had
been before them. They were, however, steadily decaying and
diminishing, and could only be kept further alive by a new influx of
fresh blood from some source. The Assyrian kings had repeatedly settled
colonists in various parts of Babylonia, from the days of
Tiglathpileser III onward. These lost their national identity and
became Babylonians to all intents and purposes.

It is a striking evidence that the Babylonians still
possessed a
certain distinctive influence, that they were able to absorb alien
elements in this manner. Even with the accession of strength which came
from these colonizations the Babylonian people would not have possessed
enough vitality to make any insurrection against Assyria. They might
join in one, but the motive force must be supplied by a nation which
had in it fresher life and greater vitality. A people possessing the
necessary force was at hand, and the insurrection would soon and
speedily become a revolution. When Asshur-etil-ili-u.kinni was crowned
king of Assyria he could also claim to be king of Babylon, for the hour
of open rebellion was not yet come.381
As we have seen, the Assyrians continued during his entire reign to
hold a considerable portion of Babylonia, and even so late as the
seventh year of his successor, Sin-shar-ishkun,382
they still retained much. The city of Babylon was apparently lost in
the very beginning, and Nabopolassar gradually gained in power and
influence through a successful revolution. It was spontaneous, but had
been slowly maturing for years. The Babylonian people did not profit by
it as a people, but were, on the contrary, engulfed in it and
practically disappeared from history. They were able to push forward
again, and even supplied later a king to the empire which resulted from
the revolution. The old influence in the world, however, never
returned, and they were soon absorbed into a later population and are
heard of no more. That another people should be able first to gain
leadership over the Babylonians, who had founded a mighty empire and
had stood with the Egyptians as the leading nations of civilization,
and then to overwhelm them and take their place in the world's history,
is indeed an event of moment. We shall need to give heed to the people
who could accomplish a feat so great. They must belong to the world's
greatest races, and behind them must have been a period during which
they had been prepared for their momentous destiny.

The people who wrought this revolution were the
Chaldeans, whom we
have already met as bitter enemies of the Assyrians. They were not less
enemies of the Babylonians, as we have also seen, and a union of
feeling between Babylonia and Assyria was brought about in the time of
Merodach-baladan, when the Babylonians looked upon the Assyrians as
their natural defenders against these unwelcome invaders. The Assyrians
had, however, done no more than drive them southward or hold them in
check. They had not driven them from the country entirely, but left
them to become slowly attached to the soil, and a genuine portion of
the population. The origin of the Chaldeans is obscure, but some facts
concerning them may be considered as fairly well known. They invaded
Babylonia from the south, coming from the neighborhood of the Persian
Gulf. Whence they had come into the Sea Lands at that point is nearly
as well known by a process of elimination. They could not have come
from Elam, and they must therefore be settlers from Arabia. From what
part of that old home land of Semites they had come is not known. It
is, however, clear that they were Semites. They bore Semitic names, as
far as any of their names are known to us, and they readily adapted
themselves to Semitic customs, whether of religion, government, or
social life. Their appearance in Babylonia was at an early date, and
they bad gradually spread in scattered communities over a considerable
portion of the country, both north and south. In this they form a close
parallel to the Aramaeans, who belonged, indeed, to the same general
wave of migration as themselves, and had early proved dangerous
neighbors to the Assyrians.

The chief stronghold of the Chaldeans was the
territory known as the
Sea Lands. This country was somewhat larger than the alluvial lands
about the mouths of the rivers, as it apparently included a strip of
territory of unknown extent along the Arabian coast of the Persian
Gulf. It had a government and a history of its own, running back
through the centuries, of which, however, only fragments are known to
us. That part of its history which is known is little more than a story
of a half nomad, half-agricultural and pastoral people who kept up a
running fire of efforts to possess themselves of the rich lands and
wealthy cities of their more fortunate Babylonian neighbors. The other
Chaldean communities have left even less mark of their individuality
upon history. They formed, indeed, principalities, which the
boastfulness of Assyrian kings has elevated into large kingdoms and
endowed with great armies, and with forces which could only be overcome
by the might of the great god Asshur. Like their more numerous fellows
in the Sea Lands, these also were anxious chiefly to find a leader who
could give into their hands the possessions of the Babylonians. Any
prince of one of these small states or communities who could win
battles over the native Babylonians was sure of a following of
Chaldeans generally, and not merely of the men of his own community.
This was the surest way of coming out of the limitations of a petty
princedom in Bit-Yakin, or in the Sea Lands, and of becoming the king
of Kaldi Land. A man who could gain the title of king of Babylon or of
king of Sumer and Accad would stand so much above his fellow-princes
among the Chaldeans that he might well be called by the lesser title of
king of Kaldi. This fact goes far to explain the constant attempts of
Chaldean princes upon Babylon. They were not moved by a sentimental
appreciation of the glories of Babylon and its ancient royal titles, as
were Tiglathpileser III and Sargon. They thirsted for power over the
Babylonians because it brought wealth and ease, and with these headship
among their own Chaldean peoples. This leadership among the Chaldeans
had, however, more than once wrecked their hopes, when by con. tact
with Babylonians they had learned more of the beauty and dignity of
Babylonian civilization and come to recognize in the title an
expression not so much of wealth as of honor, a headship in
civilization. From such ideas they were dragged down by the Chaldean
population, who thirsted after the wealth and demanded that they should
receive the well-cultivated lands and the city property. These demands
had been measurably granted by Merodach-baladan, and as a direct
consequence of this compliance his new rule was promptly shattered by
the Assyrians, and Chaldean supremacy was postponed.

As we have already said, however, the Chaldeans had
not disappeared
during the period of the Assyrian supremacy over Babylonia. They
existed in great numbers in Babylonia, and were only awaiting the day
when they should be able to produce the man strong enough to seize or
to create a favorable opportunity, as Merodach-baladan had done, by
which they might again rule. Of the Chaldean communities which had not
been absorbed by the Babylonians the kingdom or principality of the Sea
Lands was at this time still the largest and strongest. North of it
were a number of Chaldean tribes, among which Bit-Silani, Bit-Sa'alli,
and Bit-Sala had long been the most prominent, for their names find
mention in the inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III. Indeed, were it not
for his records and the Annals of the later Assyrian kings, we should
know even less than we do of the Chaldeans. The Babylonian
inscriptions, devoted to temples, palaces, and canals, ignore their
very existence, and when they came to dominion themselves they acted in
all things as Babylonians. Above these tribes going northward were the
communities of Bit-Amukkani, out of which came Ukin-zer, and of
Bit-Adini, which lay just south of the city of Babylon. Even here the
line of Chaldean communities did not cease, for the tribe of the
Bit-Dakkuri was established north of the great capital city. These
Chaldean communities, though they were Semites, were, nevertheless,
alien communities. They did not, as a rule, intermingle readily with
the Babylonians, or they would all long since have been absorbed.
Though settled in a land which had been tilled for many centuries, they
still remained half nomads. The land was not overpopulated, and if they
had desired to settle down as quiet and peaceable agriculturists, there
would have been plenty of room for them. They did not accept this
opportunity, but over and over again had been disturbers of the peace,
eager to gain the complete control, and desirous not of making a
destiny for themselves, but wishing to rob the Babylonians of that
which the industry of ages had accumulated by slow and painful steps.
In the attainment of this purpose they had been defeated before by the
Assyrians. There was now a larger hope, for Assyrian vitality was gone
and the whole vast empire was falling to pieces. As has already been
said, Babylonian vitality was also at the lowest ebb, and could offer
no effectual resistance to any sharp blow delivered by a strong arm.
But, though the Chaldeans must have known of the evident decay of
Assyria, they were too wily to rise again in rebellion at an
inopportune time. They could not be sure that Asshurbanapal did not
possess resources which might be directed against them with crushing
force, and they well knew that no movement of his was tempered with
mercy.

When Asshurbanapal died the time had come to make a
fresh attempt
for Chaldean independence of Assyria and Chaldean dominance over
Babylonia. Immediately after the death of Asshurbanapal we find
Nabopolassar (Nabu-aplu-usur) king of Babylon. We do not know what his
origin was. It has been supposed that he might be a son of Kandalanu;
and this supposition would explain the readiness and quickness with
which he secured the throne. There is, however, not a shadow of
evidence for the view. If it were the case, it would certainly seem
natural for him to have spoken of his royal origin in one or the other
of the few inscriptions383
which have come down to us. On the other hand, it is not possible to
prove that he was either of pure Babylonian or of Chaldean origin. The
kingdom which he founded was, however, plainly Chaldean. The king's
supporters were Chaldeans, and as the years went on the Babylonian
influence quite gave way to Chaldean, so that the Babylonians may be
considered as also losing their historic identity when Nineveh fell.
The change of rulers from Asshurbanapal to Nabopolassar was momentous
in consequences. With that change the headship of Assyria over the
Semitic peoples of Asia came to an end forever, and leadership among
them passed to the Chaldeans, whose Semitic blood was probably almost,
if not quite, as pure as that of the Assyrians. They had apparently not
suffered so great an intermixture with other peoples as had the
Babylonians. With this change of rulers there was founded not merely a
new dynasty, but also a new kingdom. It is indeed possible to consider
this new monarchy as a reestablishment of the old Babylonian empire,
but it is more in accordance with the facts to look on it as a new
Chaldean empire succeeding to the wealth and position of the ancient
Babylonian empire. As the monarchy which he founded was so plainly
Chaldean, it lies near to the other facts to consider Nabopolassar
himself a Chaldean. This view is not inconsistent with the fragmentary
and unsatisfactory allusions of Abydenus, who represents Nabopolassar
as a general in the army of Sarakos384
(Sin-shar-ishkun), which is probably only a form of saying that
Nabopolassar was as king of Babylon subject to the suzerainty of
Assyria-the Babylonian king hence occupying a place subordinate to the
Assyrian.

In this account of Abydefus, which may perhaps rest
on some good
Babylonian source, we have a probable hint as to the manner in which
the new empire was founded. Nabopolassar gained the throne with
Chaldean assistance, and at first was willing to hold his rule under
the nominal overlordship of Assyria. This he might do while still
nourishing the hope that he might speedily be able to cast off
altogether the suzerainty of Assyria. We have, however, no Chaldean or
Babylonian documents which give any account of the foundation of the
new kingdom, though in one text Nabopolassar calls himself the "one who
laid the foundation of the land."

We have only three historical inscriptions of the
reign of
Nabopolassar, and these, after the manner of Babylonian inscriptions
almost from the very beginning, are devoted only to the works of
peace--to building and repairing. In the first of the inscriptions385 he describes
in the usual
way the rebuilding of a great Marduk temple in Babylon, which was in a
ruinous condition. In this inscription he does not call himself king of
Babylon, but shakkanak, as though he would not yet claim to be
wholly free from Assyrian influence, nor be above the holding of a
title more or less subordinate, though he does call himself king of
Sumer and Accad. In the second386
of three inscriptions he adopts the title of king of Babylon, and we
are therefore safe in the supposition that this text belongs to a
somewhat later period, when all semblance of dependence upon Assyria
had been thrown off and Nabopolassar was king indeed in his own right
and by sufferance of his people. In this inscription he records the
construction of a canal at Sippar. The Euphrates had made a new course
away from the city, and the king now built a canal by which the water
was again to be brought to the city walls. In this construction of a
canal Nabopolassar was following the ancient precedents of Babylonian
kings from the days of Hammurabi onward. In the third of these
inscriptions387
he is
called both king of Babylon and king of Sumer and Accad, and in it he
gives an account of the rebuilding of a temple of Belit at Sippar. The
reign of Nabopolassar was not so peaceful as these fragments might seem
to indicate. He was not so absorbed in the building of temples and
canals during the whole of his reign. He had indeed a delicate and
difficult game of politics to play, in order that he should not be
wheedled out of his gains by the quick-witted Assyrians, nor unseated
from the tottering throne by a crafty prince of some Chaldean tribe. He
had also to fight a severe fight against Egypt in order to save the
borders of his empire.

Egypt had now again become one of the world's chief
powers. The
methods pursued by Psammetichus I by which he had carried Egypt to a
position almost as lofty as that occupied in the glorious days of
Thutmosis III and Rameses II were carried still further by his son and
successor, Necho II. But a short time had elapsed since Egypt was
governed by Assyrians, but now the Egyptians began to hope to
participate in the division of Assyrian plunder which must soon come.
In 609 it was already plain to Necho that Assyria could endure but a
short time. We must often remind ourselves that the flight of news from
kingdom to kingdom or from land to land was exceedingly rapid in the
ancient Orient. Kingdoms were not separated by miles of territory over
which no sound was heard, and across which no rumor came flying on the
wings of the wind. Necho knew of the sorry plight of the last Assyrian
king. This was surely his opportunity to regain not merely all
Palestine and Assyria, but even perhaps the great plains to the
Euphrates which had once been Hittite, In 609, or perhaps in 608, he
left Egypt, with an army, determined to press on to Assyria to
participate in the first distribution of booty, confident that on his
return he could readily reduce to subjection any Syrian or Palestinian
prince who might think it safe to rebel against possible Egyptian
tyranny, when relieved of the long-time oppression of Assyria.

Necho marched by land, and the city of Gaza, which
was first
approached, offered some resistance. It was, however, speedily taken,
and Necho went on. No further opposition was made to his advance until
he turned from the coast into the plain of Esdraelon. Nineveh had not
yet fallen, but it was long since the great city had disturbed the
west. The Syro-Phoenician cities were, and had been, practically
independent. They were, however, too dispirited to offer battle to any
new conqueror who appeared, hoping to suffer less through oppression
when they blindly yielded than they would through a hopeless
resistance. Alone had the kingdom of Judah the courage to dare a
resistance. Judah bad enjoyed the period of peaceful independence too
much to think of falling lightly into a new condition of servitude.
Josiah was king, and in him an intense national spirit ruled. He had
severed the ties which bound Judah to neighboring nations in their
religion, and his proclamation of Deuteronomy had widened the breach.
He would dare to attack Necho if no others had the courage.388 We do not
know exactly his
course from Jerusalem, but the place of the battle would seem to
indicate that he intended to attack the flank or rear of Necho's army,
which was moving northward and bad passed by Judah. The two armies met
at Megiddo, a place glorious in the annals of Egypt, for there, nearly
a thousand years before, Thutmosis III bad conquered the combined
forces of the Syro-Phoenician states. Necho was victorious, and Josiah
fell upon the field.389
The army of Judah returned in terror to Jerusalem, and made Jehoahaz,
younger son of Josiah, king, apparently passing over the elder son,
Eliakim, because he was disposed to submit to Necho. After the battle
of Megiddo, Necho went on northward, meeting with no further
opposition, and halted at Riblah, in Coele-Syria. Here he thought over
the appointment of Jehoahaz as king of Judah, and was dissatisfied with
the choice. He now considered himself the real master of Judah, after
the victory at Megiddo, and ordered Jehoahaz to come to Riblab, where
he was cast into chains, while his brother Eliakim was made king in his
stead, under the name Jehoiakim. Upon Judah was laid a fine of one
talent of gold and one hundred talents of silver,, which Jehoiakim
managed to pay. Jehoabaz was taken to Egypt, where he soon afterward
died. Necho II was now absolute master of all the Syro-Phoenician
states and of the erstwhile provinces of Assyria as far as the
Euphrates.

While Necho II was stripping from Assyria the
western provinces, and
Nabopolassar was adding to his new empire the portion of northern
Babylonia which Sin-shar-ishkun had previously held, the Manda took the
city of Nineveh.390
In
one mighty crash the great empire fell in fragments, and for a time
Nabopolassar was busy in securing complete control of the Babylonian
and Mesopotamian territory which had fallen into his hands. Necho II,
assured of the possession of Palestine and Syria, had returned to Egypt
with the captive Jehoahaz. He determined, however, to again go to the
north and east to see if he could extend his borders beyond the
Euphrates into the northern parts of Mesopotamia, which had now fallen
to Nabopolassar.

From Egypt he led out an immense army, greater than
any put in the
field for a long time. Besides the native troops he had bodies of
Libyans, Ethiopians, and other allies. He reached Carchemish, on the
Euphrates, without opposition, and was probably about to cross the
river when he was met by a Chaldean army. Nabopolassar was in failing
health, and unable to leave his capital, but aware of the danger which
confronted his empire, had despatched his son, Nebuchadrezzar, with a
large army. Nebuchadrezzar gave battle at Carchemish, and won a
crushing victory.391
The
Egyptians fled in confusion, and did not dare to make a stand until
they had reached Egypt. Nebuchadrezzar pursued, and not one of the
Syro-Phoenician states raised an arm against him. He did not cross the
territory of Judah, but passed round by the seacoast and reached
Pelusium unopposed. Jerusalem was in terror lest he should attack it,
and all Egypt was in an agony of fear. The slaughter of Carchemish had
undone Necho, and there was no heart in Egypt to face Nebuchadrezzar in
battle. In those hours the fate of Egypt wavered in the balance. If
Nebuchadrezzar went on over the Egyptian border, there was every
probability that Egypt would be as easily overrun as it had been by
Esarhaddon. He bad won Syria and Palestine for the new Chaldean empire
after but a very short Egyptian regime. If he could now win Egypt, the
Chaldean empire would have become in twenty years of history the
world's chief power. At this juncture he was suddenly apprised of the
death at Babylon of his father, Nabopolassar. He was compelled to drop
all designs on Egypt and return with speed to his capital, to receive
the government. No man could prophesy what might happen in the transfer
of the crown in times so troublous. An outbreak of rebellion might
easily occur, and another seize the throne before the rightful heir
could appear.

The reign of Nabopolassar had been important in its
achievements. He
had wrought much for the wealth and advantage of his land by canals and
by great buildings. He had been successful in diplomacy, for his
winning of the Manda to his aid had not been attended by any
unfortunate results. He had in war, both in his own person and in the
victories of his son, reached a wonderful success, by which in twenty
years he had built an empire of colossal proportions around the small
territory which he had alone possessed in the beginning. It may easily
be said that the greatness of this work is diminished by the undoubted
fact that the time for it was ripe. Assyria was weak at just the moment
when Nabopolassar was ready to begin empire building. Had he become
king of Babylon a little earlier, he would not so readily have made an
empire; of this there can be no doubt. But while the opportunity was at
hand, there was no less a signal display of ability in its seizing. The
name of Nabopolassar must be added to the list of the greatest kings
who had ruled in Babylonia. The new Chaldean empire had begun well. If
now he were able to hand over to a son or heir the power which he had
seized so suddenly, there was hope for a brilliant future. The son was
ready, a son as great as his father in plan, and even greater in
action.

CHAPTER II

THE REIGN OF NEBUCHADREZZAR

WHEN Nebuchadrezzar stood at the borders of Egypt
and a messenger
advised him of his father's death in far-away Babylonia, a crisis had
come in the history of a new empire. But for that death Nebuchadrezzar
would almost certainly have added Egypt to his laurels, and that were a
thrilling possibility. But a danger fully as stirring lay also before
him. If he had failed to reach Babylonia before the discordant elements
in the new world empire were able to gather unity and force, all that
his father had built might readily be destroyed. The day cried for a
man of decision and of quick movement.

Nebuchadrezzar reached Babylon from the borders of
Egypt in season
to prevent any outbreak in favor of a usurper, if any such were
intended. He was received as king of Babylon without a sign of any
trouble. So began one of the longest and most brilliant reigns (604-562
B. C.) of human history. Nebuchadrezzar has not left the world without
written witnesses of his great deeds. In his inscriptions, however, he
follows the common Babylonian custom of omitting all reference to wars,
sieges, campaigns, and battles. Only in a very few instances is there a
single reference to any of these. The great burden of all the
inscriptions is building. In Babylon was centered his chief pride, and
of temples and palaces, and not of battles and sieges, were his boasts.
As we are therefore deprived of first-hand information from Babylonian
or Chaldean sources, we are forced to turn elsewhere for information of
the achievements of Nebuchadrezzar as an organizer of armies and a
planner and conductor of campaigns. The knowledge thus obtained from
other peoples is fragmentary, because each writer was more concerned
about his own people than about the Chaldeans. The best help of this
kind is obtained from the Hebrews, with whom Nebuchadrezzar had the
first difficulties of his reign, and against whom his first operations
were directed.

Jehoiakim, king of Judah, had paid his tribute
regularly for three
years392
after
Nebuchadrezzar left Palestine on his hasty journey to Babylon to assume
the throne. He was, however, harassed by a patriotic party determined
to compel him to throw off the Chaldean yoke. The only clear voice
raised against such stupendous folly was that of Jeremiah, who, like
Isaiah in a similar crisis, warned the nation against its suicidal
folly. But the more Jeremiah denounced the greater his unpopularity and
the more certain the triumph of the popular party. At last Jehoiakim
omitted the payment of the tribute, and the issue was fairly joined.
Nebuchadrezzar did not invade the land at once, either because he held
the rebellion in contempt and supposed it would be easily overcome, or
because he was still too greatly absorbed in duties at home. His first
move was to encourage Judah's neighbors to ravage the country in
connection with Chaldean guerrilla bands. The Syrians, Moabites, and
Ammonites were very willing to join in such attacks on their old enemy.
This haphazard warfare, however, came to nothing, and Nebuchadrezzar
was compelled to more strenuous measures. In 597 he dispatched an army
to besiege Jerusalem, and soon after its appearance before the walls he
arrived to take charge of it in person. With such forces as he could
muster there could be no doubt of the ultimate issue, but Jehoiakim was
spared the sight of his country's ruin, by a sudden death. His
successor, a lad of eighteen years of age, Jehoiachin, known also as
Jeconiah,393
inherited
only trouble, and saw himself hemmed in by a force which must soon
carry the city by storming or by starvation. Jehoiachin, realizing the
hopelessness of the situation, and perhaps relying somewhat on the
mercy of his conqueror, decided to surrender before an active assault
should be undertaken. He was compelled to appear at Nebuchadrezzar's
headquarters, with his mother and his entire court, to be carried into
captivity. Besides this Nebuchadrezzar demanded the surrender of seven
thousand men capable of bearing arms, and one thousand workers in iron.
These with their families were carried away to Babylonia, where they
were settled in one great block by the river Chebar, a canal near
Nippur.394
In the place
of Jehoiachin, Mattaniah, another son of Josiah, was made king, under
the name of Zedekiah.395
He was but twenty-one years of age, and was probably considered by
Nebuchadrezzar a man who could safely be trusted to rule over the
remnant of the people who were suffered to remain when the better part
of the inhabitants had been carried away. The choice was unfortunate,
viewed from any point. Zedekiah was morally incapable of faithfulness
to the Babylonians, and that, if for nothing else, because he was too
weak to resist popular clamor and a mad patriotism. He was not wise
enough to make himself and his state leaders in the counsels of the
Syro-Phoenician states, nor strong enough to make any concert that
might be reached a power in troublous times. The policy he embraced was
alike fatal to all who joined in it. It was, however, apparently not of
his own devising. He fell a prey to other schemers bent on their own
purposes. The real wellspring of the movements now to be described is
to be found in Egypt.

Necho had failed in his great plans, large enough
though they were
to do credit to his imagination. His reign was over, and in his room
was Hophra (Apries). Soon after his accession (589) he determined to
try to save for Egypt some of the fragments of Necho's great dreams.
There was no chance whatever that he might get possession of any of the
closer linked portions of the old Assyrian empire. These were all
irrevocably possessed by others. The new Chaldean power now regnant in
Babylon had shown its power too strongly in conquest to be weak in
defense. But there were Syria and Palestine; they had been Egypt's
during many a long day; why should they not be restored? It was worth
the attempt, and the method of its undertaking might easily be copied
from Necho. Hophra simply roused these states to a concerted rebellion
against Nebuchadrezzar, and this was very probably accomplished by
secret agents. It has been seen in former pages that these
Syro-Phoenician states had blunderingly missed many a good opportunity
for opposing the progress of Assyrian conquest in earlier days; and it
has been equally clear that they were no less unfortunate in choosing
for their uprisings many a moment most unsuitable. In this latter they
now again erred. What moment less auspicious for a rebellion could they
have chosen than this, in which Egypt again spurred them on?
Nebuchadrezzar bad already been in Palestine. He and his armies knew
the way thither. He was surely established on his father's throne, and
had no fear of civil disturbances in his own kingdom. His power and his
severity were known abroad, and there was scant chance of any large
uprising in the lands of the upper Euphrates. The hour was ill chosen,
but Egypt had chosen it and men were found in the foolish states to
follow Egypt's lead. In spite of its sore sufferings Judah was still of
weight and importance, but Egypt did not approach it directly. The aid
of others was first secured, and these were sent to rouse Judah to
revolt.

Our first knowledge of all these movements is
derived from Hebrew
sources, and especially from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, himself
an actor of commanding stature in the whole sad drama. From his book it
appears that the states first planning to revolt were Edom, Moab,
Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon.396
They had already determined upon revolt, and had gone far enough in
their preliminaries to have joined in a deliberate unity before Judah
was approached at all. Whether this long delay in asking the
cooperation of Judah indicates that this state was now counted of
little or of great moment does not appear. The delay would admit of
either interpretation. At last came an embassy to Judah, in which all
had united, to persuade Zedekiah to join in a rebellion against
Nebuchadrezzar. This embassy found a situation not altogether to its
satisfaction. It found, however, very much that was exactly ready for
its labors. Jerusalem had, of course, a strong and numerous patriotic
party that hated the very name of Babylonian, and believed that the
destiny of the Hebrew people must carry them free of any allegiance to
any such power. This party had no vision for the signs of the times, no
memory for the events of the last few years, and plainly not even the
slightest glimpse into the future. Its only idea was that Jehovah was
with the Hebrews, no matter what their devotion to him alight be.397 He had,
indeed, suffered the
Babylonian to lay a heavy hand upon his people, and many had gone into
captivity. But Jehovah's temple still stood in Jerusalem, and there his
presence still was. The superstitious trust of their ancestors in the
presence of the ark in battle at Aphek398
was not greater than their present belief in Jehovah, even when his
true prophets spoke all the other way. This party had the ears of all
Jerusalem. It was ever shouting patriotism. Public opinion seemed all
with it, and always with it, when the embassy came to urge another
struggle against the new power. But there was another force in the
city, not represented, perhaps, in so many followers, but potent yet,
and with all the moral support of recognized wisdom.

Jeremiah, prophet and statesman, took the unpopular
side, and
advocated a policy of unvarying yielding to Babylonia. In words weighty
of prescience he urged the people of Jerusalem to accept the inevitable
as of God's doing, and to put their necks submissively under the yoke
which he had imposed upon them. This advice, once decisively taken,
would certainly have postponed the destruction to which Judah was madly
hastening, if it did not save the monuments of Judah's greatness from
the ruthless hand of the destroyer of that age. But it was not
decisively taken. It was, indeed, too influential to be wholly
disregarded, and the embassy went away without a decisive word of
adhesion to its mad plans. But Jeremiah could not control the enraged
populace. The air was full of rebellion, of recrimination, of false
patriotism. Even the exiles in Babylonia joined in the excited bandying
of words.399
The hour was
a bad one for a wise and cautious man. Jeremiah soon lost control; the
king was weak, and could not hold in check the populace which thirsted
in foolhardiness for a chance at its oppressors. Soon it became clear
that Egypt was to be relied upon for help in the effort. The very name
of Egypt was a word to conjure with, and its greatness seemed even yet
to fill the whole earth. Rebellion was declared; and now the end had
almost come for liberty in the west land. The new rebellion seemed to
Nebuchadrezzar a matter of small moment. He did not come at once in
person, but sent an army, which appeared before the walls of Jerusalem
in 587. The city was so situated and so defended by walls that its
reduction was no easy task. To carry it by assault was quite
impossible, and Nebuchadrezzar, as Titus in later days, determined to
surround the walls and starve it into submission. The sight of the
Babylonian forces drawing a tight cord about the city walls might have
been expected to strike sudden terror into the hearts of the war party
which had driven the nation to this pass. In this the expected did not
happen. The people of Jerusalem were mad in their folly, but they were
not cowards, and they began a vigorous resistance to the great king.
The walls of Jerusalem were strong enough to afford defense for a long
time, and Nebuchadrezzar was not provided in the beginning with
artillery strong enough to break them down and so take the city by
assault. It could apparently be taken only by a siege in which famine
should aid force.

There was terror in the city, but determination, and
the spirit was
admirable, when the odds are considered, even at so great a distance
from the events as this. It was probably chiefly the hope of help from
Egypt that strengthened the hearts and hands of the besieged. This help
was not to fail utterly, for while the siege was yet in its early
progress the army of Pharaoh Hophra entered Pal. estine7
with the direct purpose of offering help to the besieged, and of so
raising the siege, and of ultimately driving back the Babylonians. This
was partly accomplished. The Babylonian army withdrew from the gates
and went southward to meet the new and formidable foe. What a reaction
of joy was produced by this sudden reversal of fortune will perhaps
never be fully known. The party that had brought on the war must have
felt that its hour of justification had fully come. The false prophets,
as Jeremiah had stigmatized them, who had prophesied that in a short
time the Chaldean power would come to a sudden and violent end, must
have pointed to the withdrawing hosts as the first sign of the
impending fulfillment of their predictions. Amid all this rejoicing
Jeremiah alone maintained his serenity of mind and his clearness of
vision. He could not deny that a change bad indeed come; that was plain
to any eye, but it was only temporary. Amid jubilations his word sounds
solemn and disquieting: "Thus saith the Lord: Deceive not yourselves,
saying, The Chaldeans shall surely depart from us: for they shall not
depart. For though ye had smitten the whole army of the Chaldeans that
fight against you, and there remained but wounded men among them, yet
should they rise up every man in his tent, and burn this city with
fire."400
To those who
trusted in Hophra his word was no less definite: "Behold, Pharaoh's
army, which is come forth to help you, shall return to Egypt into their
own land. And the Chaldeans shall come again, and fight against this
city; and they shall take it, and burn it with fire."401 It could not
be expected
that a message of that tenor in an hour of apparent triumph and of real
hope would be welcomed. It was, of course, not believed. Every
indication of the hour was against faith in it. Hatred of Jeremiah and
doubt of his loyalty grew apace. He essayed to leave the city to care
for his property in Benjamin. It was at once suspected that he intended
to desert to the foe, and give his aid and counsel to the Chaldeans. He
was therefore apprehended and thrown into prison, there to await the
ruin which he had foreseen.402

Such were the scenes of joy and the emotions of
doubt which had sway
in the city. What were the opinions of the Babylonians we have scant
means for judging. It is not improbable that the.)counted the taking of
Jerusalem as a matter of importance to their newly founded empire. The
history of Assyria was not wholly unknown to these new agitators, and
they must have understood how troublesome a thorn Jerusalem had been in
the western side of the empire of the Sargonides. They now wished to
end this difficulty at the beginning of their own plans. But they seem
not to have thought highly of the prowess in war of the nations of
Syria. If they had estimated highly the other states of Tyre and Sidon,
they would hardly have pushed by them to attack Jerusalem, while they
were left free to attack the flank or rear. Furthermore, they would not
have left Jerusalem itself without a guard to hold it in check and
prevent an attack, while they were engaged with the Egyptians. It is a
pity that the historiographers of the Chaldean empire were so
completely given to the description of various buildings and restoring
operations as not to have left for us an account of this campaign from
their point of view. That it would ring loud with boasts of victory
might be expected. Between its lines, however, could perhaps be read
the real motives and the true purposes and intent of some of these
movements. Without such records we may only follow the events further
as the Hebrews have preserved memory of them.

The army of the Babylonians met the Egyptian army at
some unknown
point south of Jerusalem. and drove it back to Egypt, apparently
without great difficulty.403
But it did not follow up the advantage thus gained. As affairs then
were in Egypt, Nebuchadrezzar, with a good army, might have overrun the
whole land, as Esarhaddon had done before him, and have perhaps made it
a part of his new empire. But, as we shall see later, Nebuchadrezzar
was not in person at the head of his army; the army was probably not
large, and so great an extension of its operations, leaving states and
people unconquered behind, would have been precarious. At this time the
Babylonians had done all that was desired for present purposes in
compelling Hophra's return to Egypt, where he was suffered to reign in
peace for several years longer. He would not again endeavor to help his
allies in Syria and Palestine. They would be left to their fate. Egypt
was again proved a broken reed on which to lean.404

As soon as the menace of the Egyptian army of
deliverance from
Jerusalem had been removed the army of beleaguers returned to the
sacred city. With increased energy and determination was the siege
prosecuted, but the defense continued bold and brave. Within the city
there was, however, no disciplined and well-armed body of men capable
of making a successful sally against the veterans whom Nebuchadrezzar
had collected from many provinces. If this could have been done, and
fresh supplies thus introduced, the siege might have been indefinitely
prolonged. Famine405
lent
aid to the army of the siege, and the defense grew weaker. When the way
was clear for the successful assault the Babylonian general in command
ordered it, and a breach was made in the walls. On the ninth day of the
fourth month (July), in the year 586, the Chaldeans, furious with
delay, poured through the walls of Hezekiah into the city. Zedekiah
fled at night, leaving all behind him. The courage which had sustained
the siege was plainly not his; his only idea was to save himself by
flight, probably into the wilds beyond Jordan, for in that direction
his fleeing steps were turned, and then later, when the Babylonian army
had withdrawn, to return and save something from the wreck.406 The
Babylonians were too
shrewd to permit so transparent a scheme to reach fulfillment, and gave
pursuit. So long as the king, lawfully so appointed, was free there was
some chance of a fresh rebellion, as soon as the necessities of their
growing empire should give call to the armies elsewhere. Zedekiah was
overtaken in the plains of Jericho and captured.407
His captors did not return him to Jerusalem, but carried him off to
Riblah, in Syria, to present him before the person of Nebuchadrezzar.
It now appears that Nebuchadrezzar was not present at the siege of
Jerusalem at all, but retained personal command at Riblah, and very
probably of a larger body of troops than was utilized in the investment
of the Jewish capital. Whether the body of troops under his command was
actively engaged against other Syro-Phoenician states at this time is
not clearly known. Nebuchadrezzar would not be likely to hold a large
body of men in idleness for a long time, even if it were a military
possibility. On the other hand, we have no sign in the materials now
accessible to us of any great movements408
of his while the siege of Jerusalem was in progress. That he did not
attack Tyre nor Sidon until after Jerusalem was taken seems clear, and
we know of no other people sufficiently strong to resist a large army,
who were now in rebellion. It may therefore well be that Nebuchadrezzar
with his forces had been chiefly occupied in widely extended plundering
raids. So soon as Zedekiah was presented before Nebuchadrezzar the
judgment was given against him. His sons were slain before his eyes,
and he was then blinded-that his last sight of earth might be one of
horror. It is not surprising that condign punishment should be his,
when the circumstances are considered. When made king by the Chaldeans
he had sworn faithfulness to them in the name of his own God, Yahwe.409 He had broken
that oath-the
most solemn oath which could have been placed before him. But the
savage form of his punishment is for the moment interesting. That shows
a new hand in the dominion of Babylonia. Such savagery410 would be
expected in an
Assyrian king. It was rather unusual in a Babylonian king, and its
appearance now is in connection with a Chaldean. In that is there a
showing forth of a new people. It seems a promise that the Chaldean
would not be merciful, as the Babylonian had so often been in the past.

While Zedekiah was in flight the army of the
Babylonians had entered
the city. The breach in the walls was made in the eleventh year of his
reign411
(586), after a
siege lasting about one and a half years. The patience of the
conquerors was exhausted. They had tried before to secure a stable
condition of affairs, which the people of Jerusalem had ruthlessly
broken. They had spent this long period in a wearisome siege. They
would now end all possibility of a future like the past by utterly
destroying the offending city. It was first plundered for the
enrichment of the successful army, and the gold, silver, and brass of
the temple decorations, with all the vessels of its service, were
removed to be dedicated to Marduk in Babylon. Nothing of value was
forgotten, that Yahwe might pay full tribute to the conquering Marduk.
Then the torch was applied, and the temple, center of such affection
and hope, became a mass of blackened ruins. Then the rich parts of the
city were likewise destroyed, and its, walls of defense, which had
rendered such valiant service, were razed to the ground. It was an act
of barbarism, like unto the oft-repeated deeds of the Assyrians and
unlike the custom of the Babylonians.412
Like the punishment of Zedekiah, this also displayed the new hand in
the affairs of men-the hand of the Chaldean.

Of the population of the ruined city a large
number-how large we do
not know-were carried away captive to Babylonia.413
The captives, as before, were chosen from the richest and best of the
population. The poor,414
the weak, were left behind, and a wise and generous provision was made
for them. They were to receive land for the cultivation of the vine,
and were to be left to the unhindered pursuit of their religion. A
descendant of the house of David, by name Gedaliah, was appointed
governor,415
and to him
the person of Jeremiah was intrusted. The prophet was to be left free
to go and to do as he willed, and was evidently regarded by the
Chaldeans not as a Hebrew patriot, but rather as a Chaldean
sympathizer. It was probably the purpose of the Chaldeans to give the
land a stable government and a full opportunity for the development of
its resources. Under favorable conditions it would doubtless soon be
able to pay a good tribute and so add to the wealth of the empire. This
purpose, however, failed of early accomplishment, for the few and
feeble folk left under the rule of Gedaliah were not able to maintain
any sure defense of their present position. Another descendant of the
Davidic house, with the surprising name of Ishmael, plotted against
Gedaliah. Ishmael found a helper in the Ammonites, who may have feared
that the people of Judah would again form a strong state, and were
anxious to nip the effort in the bud. Ishmael slew Gedaliah and many of
his helpers,416
and so
destroyed the last hope of the national cohesion. The paltry few who
now remain are in terror before Nebuchadrezzar and in fear of their
neighbors. There is no hope for them in the land, and they determine to
emigrate to Egypt. With them Jeremiah cast in his lot, and into another
land the poor remains of a once powerful kingdom departed.417

So ended the campaign of Nebuchadrezzar against
Judah. The province
was left stripped of its inhabitants, wasted by armies, and burned in
flames. A more ruinous end of a campaign has rarely been seen in human
history. Even from the Chaldean point of view the punishment of
Zedekiah and of his people was greatly overdone. If the new Babylon was
to become rich, it could gain wealth as the Assyrians had done, not
only by plunder, but by carefully gathered annual tributes. From Judah
in the state to which it was now come no tribute could be expected.
From it no levies of men of war to fight for the extension of Chaldean
power could be drawn. It was a wasted land, and in it a great
opportunity had been lost through savage hate and perhaps through fear
of future Egyptian intrigue.

In this destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation
of another
portion of its inhabitants is found the culmination of a long series of
efforts directed against the Hebrews by the peoples of Babylonia and
Assyria. From the days of Hammurabi down to this dark end again and
again have Babylonian kings plundered and punished and at times
administered in this land and among this people. Early in their career
of conquest the Assyrian kings began the same process. For them it was
reserved to blot out the northern kingdom of the Hebrews in the days of
Shalmaneser and Sargon. The early Babylonians, however, never achieved
a permanent victory over them. To the Chaldeans, their heirs, was this
given. Wherein all his predecessors had failed Nebuchadrezzar had
succeeded. The success was lamentable, though the final issue of it all
was better than this hour presaged. Many a people had been swallowed up
in the advance of Assyrian and Babylonian power and forever lost. Even
empires once distinguished for power and civilization had so thoroughly
disappeared in the vortex as to leave scarcely a distinguishable sign
of their former. existence. This was not to be true in the
case of Judah. The Hebrew had ideas that could not be quenched, and
these carried his person into a life that would not die among men. The
Chaldean had destroyed the state, but the people lived on in activity.
The songs of Zion might not be sung,418
but the words of Zion might be spoken. The Hebrew would n9t now pay
tribute in the land of Judah, but would take tribute even of his
captors as he pushed successfully forward into business in his new
home. His wise leader, Jeremiah, had counseled him to make the new land
his home in the fullest sense: "Build ye houses, and dwell in them; and
plant gardens, and eat the fruit of them; take ye wives, and beget sons
and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to
husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply ye there,
and be not diminished. And seek the peace of the city whither I have
caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto the Lord for it:
for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace."419
The advice was followed.420
Nebuchadrezzar had gained a new factor in his composite population,
though he had lost a rich province.

As soon as the war against Judah was ended
Nebuchadrezzar turned his
arms against Tyre. The great commercial city had joined with Sidon in
the embassy which induced Judah to rebel against him.421 Tyre was
probably the chief
sinner, after Egypt, in this whole matter. It had more at stake in its
overland commerce to the east, upon which its seagoing commerce was
dependent, than any of the others. Tyre would fain make another attempt
to gain back the commerce of which the Assyrians had gone far to
deprive it, and for which they had struggled so long. Tyre would now be
brought to answer for its new attempt at rebellion. In the case of
Tyre, however, Nebuchadrezzar had an entirely different problem from
that which he had successfully met in Judah. Its people indeed were not
more brave than the people of Jerusalem; on the contrary, their whole
history would show that they were much less so. Not in person but in
position did they possess a preeminence over their fellow-conspirators.
Jerusalem was surrounded by hills, and, though well fortified, as its
resistance showed, it was approachable on every side. Tyre, on the
other hand, was founded upon the sea, and it was impossible for a land
force alone to besiege it successfully. No matter how completely it was
invested by land, provisions could always be introduced from the sea.
The Chaldeans were no more familiar with the sea than the Assyrians or
Babylonians422
had been,
and were no more able or willing to venture upon it. Nebuchadrezzar had
no seaport on the Mediterranean in complete possession, from which he
could send forth a fleet to besiege Tyre from the sea, and he had no
fleet with which to do this even if he had had the port of departure.
The issue of the attempt which Nebuchadrezzar was now to make was
problematical indeed. But Tyre must be punished or his empire might be
assailed again in a twelvemonth, even though Judah had been so terribly
handled. In 585 Nebuchadrezzar led his army against Tyre and began a
siege. It was a long and tedious enterprise. For thirteen years423 the Chaldeans
held on their
investment (585-573) unable to take the city. Unfortunately there is no
account of this siege in any of Nebuchadrezzar's own inscriptions, and
we must gain such insight into the affair as is possible from the
fragmentary pieces of information at second or third hand which have
come down from other sources.424
From these it is quite clear that the city was not taken by the
Babylonians at all. An end to the long contest was finally made by a
capitulation similar to those which Tyre had made before in the case of
the Assyrians. The people of Tyre were not careful for national pride.
They desired most of all to be let alone, for the continuing of their
peaceful pursuit of trade. Ethobal II was now king of Tyre, and he was
willing to make terms with Nebuchadrezzar, which involved, probably,
the payment of a tribute, and little more.425
Ethobal continued to rule his city under a sort of Assyrian tutelage.
Tyre was not given to the sword, burned, or plundered, and
Nebuchadrezzar had but little to pride himself upon in this campaign,
years of time though it had cost.

While the siege of Tyre still dragged its weary
length along
Nebuchadrezzar began another and even more important undertaking, and
this against Egypt. It was Egypt which had caused all this loss of time
and men and treasure to Nebuchadrezzar. So long as Egypt was suffered
to remain as it was, or permitted to increase in power, so long would
Palestine and Syria remain open to sudden raid or to slow-maturing
intrigue. Egypt must be punished for past intrigues, for the army sent
to help Zedekiah, and must at the same time be deprived of the power of
making any similar trouble for some time to come.

Nebuchadrezzar had driven Hophra and his army back
into Egypt, but
he did not pursue, as we have already seen, his advantage any further
at this time. Whether he made any further assaults between that event
and the thirty-seventh year of his reign is not known to us, as our
sources of information are silent on the matter. Whether he did or did
not Egypt remained quiet until his time for retribution had come. In
567 Nebuchadrezzar invaded Egypt, determined to make an end of its
meddling in Syria. He had opportunely chosen the moment of his
campaign. Hophra had suffered a terrible defeat in Libya, out of which
had come dynastic difficulties.426
He had even been compelled to associate on the throne with himself as
coregent Amasis, as a representative of the national Egyptian party.
After a defeat in arms against another power, and after some sort of
civil strife in which the land received a second king, Egypt was in
nowise prepared for the invasion. Nebuchadrezzar met with no serious
opposition at the borders, and pressed into the heart of the Nile
valley. How far he penetrated into the country is entirely unknown to
us. The Chaldeans appear to have had a tradition427
that be turned Egypt into a Babylonian province, after he had conquered
Amasis. We have, however, no definite information which would lead us
to believe that he wrought so great a revolution. To repeat the
Assyrian exploit of Esarhaddon was hardly to be expected of
Nebuchadrezzar.

He had undoubtedly plundered largely, and was now
ready to return
laden with booty. He had further shown his power to the people of
Egypt, as he went unopposed along the whole course of their former
possessions in Syria, and they would not be easily led into a violation
of his territory. Nebuchadrezzar attempted nothing more in Egypt. He
did not go on to make it a part of his empire, as Esarhaddon had done,
nor does he appear to have in any way interfered with the native
rulers. If his reign had continued longer, it is altogether probable
that Egypt would have again been the scene of his operations, to
plunder and perhaps attempt to rule.

The campaign against Egypt was probably the last
which
Nebuchadrezzar undertook against any people. The attempt has been made
to show that he also made a campaign against Elam. This is based only
upon the passage in Jeremiah's prophecies428
in which he predicts a day of wrath and destruction for this people. He
does not, however, mention the name of the king who was to accomplish
this punishment of Elam. There is not known to us any reason which
should have induced Nebuchadrezzar to undertake such a campaign,
neither do we find a chronological position for it in his reign. It is,
from present knowledge, improbable that he did make war against his
neighbor. The campaigns of Nebuchadrezzar appear few and small as we
look at them in comparison with those of Tiglathpileser III, Sargon,
and Esarhaddon. Other campaigns, yet unknown to us, he probably waged,
for he could otherwise hardly have held and extended the empire of
Nabopolassar. But whether he waged others or not, his title to rank
among the greatest warriors who ever ruled in Babylonia or Assyria can
hardly be denied. His exploits are not so well 'known; his own
inscriptions have not spread them before us in such elaboration of
detail as did those of former kings, and this absence of a fully
rounded picture makes them seem less important than they really are. If
judged not only by what we know of them, but also by the results which
we can see did actually accrue from them, they must be ranked high
indeed. He accomplished by force of arms the complete pacification of
the long-troubled Syro-Phoenician states-a pacification that long
continued even though his hand was removed. He carried war into the
land of Egypt, and that when the land was not weak, as it once had
been, but immediately after a great increase of strength. He defeated
and drove back in confusion two great Egyptian kings, first Necho II
and then Hophra. He began the work of consolidating a vast new empire,
and carried it to brilliant success by sheer force of despotic power.
There were no civil wars and no further rebellion, because none dared
raise a head or hand against a personal power like his.

Yet great though Nebuchadrezzar was in the
organization and the use
of an army, great in the choice of commanders and in their employment,
he bases all his claim to posterity's honor not upon war and its
glories, but upon the quiet acts of peace. His long and elaborately
written inscriptions429
have only a boastful line or two of conquest, while their long periods
are heavy with the descriptions of extraordinary building operations.
From his father he may have inherited this inclination, if not skill in
its accomplishment. When he ascended the throne Babylon was already
showing the result of Nabopolassar's building, but it must have looked
almost a ruin in its very incompleteness. The great works which
Nabopolassar had undertaken were in considerable part left unfinished.
To these Nebuchadrezzar first addressed his labors. The chief of them
all were the walls of Babylon, which Nabopolassar had intended to
rebuild, and at the same time to enlarge. He had perhaps accomplished
about two thirds of his plans when the work was left to his greater
son. The inner wall of Babylon, the Imgur-Bet, was completely finished,
and the outer wall, the Nimitti-Bel, likewise, their thickness being
increased and the ditches which belonged to them being lined with
brick. In connection with this he reconstructed the great city gates,
which were not of solid metal, but were of cedar wood covered with
strips of decorated bronze. At the thresholds he set up bronze colossi,
probably of the usual half human, half-animal form. For the age in
which these walls were built they were probably almost impregnable, for
they far exceeded the walls of Jerusalem and of Tyre, which had so well
resisted Nebuchadrezzar's own assaults. But even with this result
Nebuchadrezzar was far from satisfied. He would finish all that his
father had planned and then go far beyond him. Not, only should the
inner wall be impregnable, the outer wall should be so strong that no
force should ever be able to reach the inner wall, and then to cap the
curious climax he would even, on some sides, make it impossible even to
reach the outer wall. On the southern side the city needed no further
defense, for upon it lay the land of Chaldea, loyal to
incorruptibility, and strong enough to prevent any force from passing
through its borders to attack the capital. It remained, therefore, only
to strengthen the walls upon three sides. This was done in the
following manner: Upon the east of the city, at a distance of four
thousand cubits from the outer wall, he built another massive wall.
Before this was a vast moat, basin-shaped, deep, and walled round with
bricks like a quay. The outworks on the west were similar, but not so
strong, and this was natural, for the desert formed a natural barrier.
The works on the north were entirely different in construction and
apparently in purpose. Between the two city walls, and between the
Euphrates and the Ishtar gate, Nebuchadrezzar reared a great artificial
platform of brick laid in bitumen. Upon this elevated plateau was then
erected a citadel, which was connected with his royal palace. While
this construction did not act as the former in keeping a hostile army
from reaching even the outer wall, it did make the outer wall at that
point practically a solid construction back to the inner wall, and so
made it impossible that it should be either broken down or even
breached. At the same time the lofty citadel made a watchtower whence
the level country for miles could be commanded, and from which a
destructive shower of missiles could be rained on the heads of any
attacking party.

With these works Nebuchadrezzar had made the taking
of Babylon, if
any defense were made within, an impossibility in that age. The compass
of the walls was so vast that no single power, and perhaps scarcely a
combination of powers, could hope to accomplish an investment that
would reduce the city by famine; while, on the other hand, wall after
wall must be broken down, under almost impossible conditions, if the
city was to be taken from without by assault. The enemies of Babylon
must lay their plans to gain the city, in its state of defense, only
from within by treachery.430

When the defenses were fully accomplished it was
natural that
Nebuchadrezzar should turn to the beautifying and increasing of the
city from within. Nabopolassar had built a great street, Ai-ibur-shabu,
which Nebuchadrezzar now increased in height, leveled, and repaved; to
this he joined a new and handsome street called Nanasakipat-tebi-sha.
The repaving of these streets, at increased elevation, made necessary
two other great works. The points at which they passed through the
inner and outer walls were marked by great gateways, which had now
become too low. They were therefore completely torn down to water level
and rebuilt in astonishing magnificence, the massive cedar doors
covered with bronze plates, while before the thresholds were placed
great colossi of animals and dragons. Yet another necessity was brought
about by this same elevation of the street surfaces. The doors of the
palace, which Nabopolassar had rebuilt, must be changed, and with this,
for greater display, came the rebuilding of the entire palace. This was
a work of colossal proportions, though less than that of the work upon
the walls. Nebuchadrezzar is careful to state that for this
reconstruction he began at the earth's surface, and laid afresh the
foundations in brick and bitumen. To this he adds further the statement
that he brought great cedar beams from the Lebanon for the work. That
word alone suggests a comment upon the vastness of the undertaking,
when one considers the distance by land from the Lebanon to the
Euphrates over which these beams must in some manner be carried, and
then the long rafting down the river.

From such buildings of war and of residence
Nebuchadrezzar turned to
temples-the homes of his gods. Upon E-sagila431
he seems not to have expended any great labor, but he made its vast
entrance doorway to shine as the sun. But the hall of the oracles,
Du-azag, was decorated with gold, in the place of its former silver,
while the great temple E-kua was redecorated, and this also with "red
gold." In his own story these temple works are passed over in a few
lines, and here may have only a passing word, but we must not fail to
make due allowance for them when imagination sets in array before us
the works of this one king. To his gods Nebuchadrezzar paid a full
measure of faith,432
as
every inscription testifies in words. To them he was not likely to give
less of works when he rebuilt his imperial city. Beneath the few lines
of his hasty allusion lies the great fact of immense and costly works
for the praise of the gods of Babylon. One more work was done for
Babylon itself, and that a work deemed always praiseworthy in a king of
Babylonia. Canal restoration was constantly necessary, and since the
day when Hammurabi built his first canal at the very founding of his
realm king after king had rebuilt these indispensable public works. The
eastern canal of Babylon, by name Libil-Khigalla, had fallen into a
state of ruin. The clay from its banks had slipped down into its
channel until, in places at least, its very course could not be traced.
Nebuchadrezzar had it redug, and then walled up from the bottom. This
canal, in its rebuilding, was carried beneath the great street of
Ai-ibur-shabu, and that made necessary a bridge to carry the street
over the sluggish waters. It would be interesting to know the
construction and the material of the bridge, but the record is silent
thereon. Nebuchadrezzar himself plainly considered this canal work as
worthy of especial note; to it he gave an entire inscription,433 as he did not
even to his
great wall, temple, and palace erections and adornments. Babylonia was
still a rainless land, and the builders of canals were its chief
benefactors.

The construction of temple, palace, canal, and
defenses of Babylon
must have been spread over a long series of years, though perhaps
little was done in regard to them until the chief of his wars were
over. Had Nebuchadrezzar done nothing more for his kingdom than thus to
make his capital great, powerful, and beautiful, his claim to fame in
Babylonia would, from all oriental standards, have been good. It was of
the very nature of oriental monarchs in the ancient world to plunder
the whole kingdom that the capital might be rich and worthy. This
Nebuchadrezzar had done, but he had not left undone great works for the
other chief cities of his empire. Over Babylon he had watched with
especial pride. He may well have felt and spoken as the Hebrew sacred
book represents: "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the
house of the kingdom, by the might of my power, and for the honor of my
majesty?"434

Over Borsippa, also, did he turn his gaze and make
his boast, and to
it he also gave works of reconstruction. In Borsippa the pyramidal
temple of E-ur-imin-an-ki, "the house of the seven quarters of the
Heavens and the Earth," had fallen into partial ruin. It had been
originally intended when it was built to make it consist of seven
stages from earth to its topmost pinnacle. The final stage had,
however, not been added at all, according to Nebuchadrezzar's statement
on the subject. That alone would have tempted the building king to a
work of completion. But besides this the building was now in bad
repair. The account of it which Nebuchadrezzar gives is very
instructive as showing the process and the cause of decay in Babylonian
constructions.435
He says
that the water drains were out of order, and that therefore the rains
had broken down its walls, and the outer covering of burnt bricks had
burst open. Though Babylonia was a rainless land in the sense that it
had no regular rains of value to the husbandman, it was subject to
torrential downpours of water. If this was not rapidly and completely
carried off, it soaked in between the burnt facing and the unburnt
filling of the walls and caused a bulging, which was liable to end in a
downfall of the wall. To such pass had this building come.
Nebuchadrezzar now rebuilt the structure, supplying new strength to it
without taking it down to its foundations, as he had done repeatedly in
other cases. When thus restored he capped it with the new story to
bring it to the required symmetrical height. In like manner he rebuilt
or restored the remaining temples of the city. To these works of peace
he added a work of preparation for defense in war by rebuilding the
walls of Borsippa on the same general scale and plan as those of
Babylon.

In the reconstruction and adornment of the temples
of E-sagila at
Babylon and of E-zida at Borsippa Nebuchadrezzar had honored the most
ancient and most venerated of all the shrines of the Babylonian people.
Other temples might and did possess great renown in this or that city;
these were honored wherever the name of Babylonia went, and wherever
its people had joys or sorrows. In these temples the king worshiped. He
had now made them worthy of the gods who had made him great. But he
likewise owed debts to other gods and to the citizens of other cities.
He therefore carried on restorations of temples in other cities, among
which he especially enumerates Sippar, Larsa, Ur, Dilbat, Baz, and Uruk.436 On the bricks
which he laid
in every temple he stamped his name and royal titles, and from every
ruin in Babylonia which these later days have opened and explored,
however lightly, bricks have come bearing the stamp of this king. It
would appear that not only in the city in which he dwelt, and in the
few which he especially enumerates, but in every other city, small or
great, in his own land, he had either built or restored. Like unto him
in this particular no king his equal had ever reigned in Babylonia.

In the year 562 Nebuchadrezzar died. Of his last
years we know
nothing but continued building, and of his last days and the final
cause of his death we have no Babylonian record. The story of the book
of Daniel437
that his
great pride had a deep fall, and that his reason was lost, and that he
was left to suffer of a madness which made him conceive himself a beast
of the field, finds no mention in any record of his own race.438 It might well
be a day of
mourning in all Babylon when the great king died. Unto the very ends of
the earth he had made the name of Babylon great.

Enough has already been said concerning his merits
and success as a
man of war. In taking a view of his whole personality there are to be
added to this several other points of weight. His building operations
were so extensive that in this particular he outranks all who preceded
him, whether in Assyria or in Babylonia. For the most part these works
were beneficent, though the execution of them must have cost much human
life and terrible suffering of fatigue and oppression. That he added to
this love for the constructively beautiful an interest in the arts and
the sciences is clear enough from the books which have come down to us
out of the great collections in his own and other cities. These are
evidences also enough that he was a patron of letters and science,
worthy to be compared with that great Assyrian founder of libraries,
Asshurbanapal. A man of blood and iron it has been already sufficiently
shown that he was. His punishment of Zedekiah is to be placed with the
very worst instances of. savagery in all that history. But
it is just to remember that Zedekiah had broken an oath, and so may be
considered as having offended against the great god Marduk, and that in
a most vital point. Further than this there is no other instance of
great cruelty known to us; and it is especially worthy of notice that
we find no case of cruelty practiced solely from bloodthirstiness, and
in repulsive fashions, as was so often the case in the reigns of
certain Assyrian kings like Asshurnazirpal.

To all his virtues and all his faults Nebuchadrezzar
added deep
piety. He was a polytheist, worshiping especially Marduk, god of the
mighty temple of E-sagila in Babylon, and Nabu, god of the great temple
E-zida in Borsippa. He was, however, careful to pay due homage to gods
many and lords many in different cities of his empire, and to these, as
we have seen, he likewise dedicated temples.

When he died there died also the real power to live
and grow in his
empire. He left no son like himself, and the Chaldean people were
unable to produce another man worthy to sit upon his throne and sway
his scepter.

CHAPTER III

THE LAST YEARS OF THE CHALDEAN EMPIRE

THE throne of Babylon, which Nebuchadrezzar had made
so potent a
force in the world, was occupied at once upon his death by Amil-Marduk,
the biblical Evil-merodach439
(man or servant of Marduk), the son of Nebuchadrezzar (561-560 B. C.).
So strong had been Nebuchadrezzar's hold upon the people that there was
no attempt at disturbances in the transfer of power to his son.

Of his reign we know almost nothing, for no
inscriptions of his own
have been found. Two allusions from the outside give our only possible
view of his brief- reign. The first of these comes, as so much of our
information of his father's reign, from the Hebrews. The writer of the
Second Book of Kings440
states that in the first year of his reign, and thirty-seven years
after the captivity of Jehoiachin, he took the Hebrew exile out of
prison. From that time Jehoiachin enjoyed the fare of a king and wore
the garments of royalty in exchange for the prison garb which he had
worn so long. Of this act of mercy, which is, however, not inconsistent
with the remaining facts concerning this king, there is no other
record. To Berossos441
we
owe the remaining reference to this reign. He says that Evil-merodach
ruled unlawfully and tyrannically. It may be that the release of
Jehoiachin was one expression of unlawful rule, and that it was the
priestly or the national party whose feeling toward the king Berossos
expresses.442
Such men
would naturally bate a king who showed any feeling of sympathy or help
for the accursed people who bad cost Babylon so dear in lives and
treasure for their subduing. For this or some other cause Evil-merodach
lost the loyalty of enough of his subjects to make successful a plot
against his life. In the second full year of his reign be was
assassinated. His reign left no mark upon his country's history, but
the violent end of his life was an ominous portent of the desperate
days that were in the future. The assassination of a king makes the
dark periods of Assyrian history cry out a warning to the Chaldeans.

The plan for the slaying of Amil-Marduk had been
devised by
Nergal-shar-user (Neriglissor--that is, "Nergal, protect the king"),
and had probably been executed by him or upon his order. He now became
king of Babylon, and had likewise a brief reign (559-556 B. C.). He was
an influential man long before the death of Nebuchadrezzar. He it was,
probably, who appeared at Jerusalem during the war of Nebuchadrezzar,443 holding the
office of rab-mag,
and engaging in important diplomatic duties. His family was
influential in business affairs, as the numerous contract tablets444 from that
period abundantly
testify. Whatever his origin may have been, he had at least the
station, or the power, to gain the hand of Nebuchadrezzar's daughter in
marriage. In his most important inscription445
he calls his father Bel-shum-ishkun, of whom nothing is known. So far
as his ability would permit he followed in all things the example of
the great king who had made the empire; his inscriptions even being in
a similar style. His pride, likewise, was in the adornment and the
increase of Babylon, and his first concern was to beautify the temple
E-sagila. Before its doors had stood great bronze dragons, to warn away
the evil; these he covered with silver. The temple E-zida of Borsippa
he also decorated and beautified. In these works he honored the gods
who had brought him from the world of commerce even to the rule of an
empire, and to them he pays the tribute of words of passionate
devotion, heaping word upon word of prayer and of praise. It remained
only now that he should accomplish some work for the canal system of
Babylon. In this his first care was to regulate the course of the canal
upon which the city was built, this being a channel of the Euphrates
itself, which was now changed so that, as in former times, it should
pass directly by the temple of E-sagila. The eastern arm of the canal
was also walled up, that its current might flow with sweet water,
unmixed with sand.

The residence of Nergal-char-usur was in the same
palace as that of
Nebuchadrezzar, and in this he carried on extensive alterations and
improvements. The first of them concerned its foundations, which the
canal had made unsafe, and the last of them were put upon the lofty
summit of the building. In these works the chief part was played by the
ever-present brick, but mention is made also of the cedar beams, which
came, as before, from the Lebanon.

There is no mention in the life of Nergal-sharusur
of any wars
throughout his empire. It is, however, scarcely probable that he could
have reigned without any disturbances requiring for their suppression
the force of arms. It was the custom of the Babylonian kings to say
nothing of war; in this he followed the former usage. Whether a warrior
himself or not, he kept his empire intact, and the Chaldean power
suffered no loss from that which Nebuchadrezzar had won. Better even
than was to be expected did the empire sustain itself.

The oft-repeated prayer446
of Nergal-shar-usur for a long reign was not granted. In 556 his life
ended, and his son succeeded him. Labashi-Marduk, whose name puzzled
even Berossos and the Greeks in general, who represent it as
Labassarachos, or Labarosoarchodos, was but a youth447 when he became king. At once
he became the subject of a conspiracy, directed against him, says
tradition, because he displayed evil traits of character. That this
reason was a mere excuse for a deep plot of the priesthood to wrest the
throne from his hands there can be little doubt. Labashi-Marduk reigned
but nine months (556), and was then killed. His successor was not a
Chaldean at all, but a native Babylonian not related to the reigning
house, and this increases the probability that beneath these events lay
schemes which were slowly working out toward ruin. Plot and counterplot
would not add strength to the empire, and assassination boded ill to a
stable government.

As soon as Labashi-Marduk was dead the conspirators
chose as king a
man who had participated in the revolution, for such it undoubtedly
was. The man chosen to ascend the throne was Nabonidus (Nabu-naidu, the
god "Nabu is glorious"), a man of distinguished position. His father
was Nabu-balatsu-igbi,448
to whom is given the same title as Nergal-shar-usur had added to his
father's name. Nabonidus was a man of piety, beyond even the example of
the Chaldeans who had preceded him. He was a builder of temples and a
restorer of them, and this appears to have absorbed his chief energies.
This work he carried on in a different and in a more thorough way than
either Nebuchadrezzar or Nergal-shar-usur. These had been content to
take down a ruined temple to its foundations upon the earth's surface,
and then to rebuild it of a size and a magnificence surpassing that
which it had been. Not so this new servant of the gods. He was not
content to reach merely the earth's surface as he began the
reconstruction of a temple. His workmen must burrow in the earth until
the original foundation stones of the temple's first builder were
found. This was often no easy task. As we have seen before, the temples
of Babylonia were constantly in decay, and this led to repeated
restorations. These restorations must often have left the work of
previous builders covered with debris and difficult to find. In many
rebuildings the site even of the temple was partly or wholly changed.
Amid all these difficulties and discouragements his work went on. In
almost every case the foundation stones were found at last, and the
king's name who had caused the first stone to be laid was then read,
and a careful record made of the fact. The finding of these names of
ancient kings led to a study of the historical records of the past,
which the royal libraries still preserved. Out of the study of these
ancient inscriptions the historiographers of the court of Nabonidus
gradually learned the dates of past events of importance and the order
of the events themselves.

The next step in this interesting development was to
state, in the
inscriptions of Nabonidus, that such and such a king's name had been
found, and that the king had reigned so many years before the king who
was now renewing their fallen works. These notices in the inscriptions
of Nabonidus make his inscriptions of surpassing value to the student
of the past.449
No longer
are building inscriptions dreary wastes of boasting words; out of them
come names buried otherwise in the mists of the past. These names also
have their proper perspective, for the royal scribe has written with
them the number of years before Nabonidus they had lived. But for these
notices many a definitely known king whose own inscriptions have later
greeted the explorer's spade could not be assigned his proper place in
the development of his country's political history. His own texts bear
no allusion, at times, to his ancestors, and no hint as to his
chronological position. But the scribes of Nabonidus had lists of
kings, now lost, and were able at once to locate these monarchs in
their proper place. Whether consciously or not, Nabonidus thus became a
patron of letters and history, and made all his race debtor to him for
his archaeological researches among ruined palaces and temples. Former
monarchs who held possession of Babylon had been eager to have
researches pursued into the history of the past, but only that their
own names might be connected with real or supposed ancestors of renown.450 To this
weakness there is no
analogy in Nabonidus. His inscriptions are burdened more with the names
of gods than of men, and with no hero of the past does he attempt to
connect his own lineage.

These archaeological researches were interesting to
Nabonidus and
the scholars of his court, but they appear to have worked ill for the
state. The king must have given himself to them to the loss of time,
energy, and enthusiasm for the duties of kingcraft, to which he appears
to have given little heed. He did not reside in Babylon at all, but at
Tema,451
probably an
insignificant place, with no other influence in history. There he spent
his time absorbed in great plans of building and of restoration, enrapt
in the work of his scholars, who were disentangling the threads that
led away into the dawn of human history, and devoted to prayers and
good works before the gods. Imagination conceives him not as busied
with concerns of state in the capital or at the head of an army seeking
new territory or defending old, but rather as going about his lands
watching the progress of work upon a temple, or stepping down into
excavations to look upon the inscribed name of some old king which no
eye had seen for thousands of years. Though there is no clear statement
in his records to this effect, it seems almost certain that the great
concerns of state were left to his son, Bel-shar-usur ("Bel protect the
king," the biblical Belshazzar), who was a sort of regent during
probably a large part of the reign. That the position of Bel-shar. usur
was unusual appears quite clearly from the manner of the allusions to
him in Nabonidus's inscriptions. At the end of some of them his name is
coupled in the prayers with that of Nabonidus, and blessings are
especially invoked upon him.452
No such usage as this appears in any other text, and there must be a
specific reason for it, which it is simplest to find in his regency.
This is supported, likewise, by the otherwise inexplicable conduct of
Nabonidus during the most threatening situation in all the history of
Babylon. When the army of Cyrus, as will be shown later, was
approaching the city he remained in retirement at Tema, and gave over
the control and leadership completely to Bel-char-usur. By this regency
of Belshazzar is also explained the origin of the Jewish tradition
preserved in the book of Daniel, which makes Belshazzar,453 and not
Nabonidus, the last
king of Babylon. That it had a historic basis there is reason to
believe.

As we have no historic accounts of events in the
earlier part of the
reign of Nabonidus, it will be necessary to reconstruct those years
from the slight notices which are given them in his own
inscriptions-and these notices are naturally concerned primarily with
building. At the beginning of every inscription after his title of king
of Babylon Nabonidus is careful always to add the words, "Preserver of
E-sagila and E-zida," thus connecting his name continually with the
greatest shrines of his race. It was not, however, in these two temples
that his chiefest interest centered. It was perhaps useful for reasons
of state that he should thus appear as their patron, but he did not
show to either a reverence more real than words. He did not even pay to
E-sagila the annual New Year's visit, which was an act sacredly
followed by the kings who had ruled before him. His devotion was paid
the more to other shrines, in other cities. For this there was some
justification to be found in their almost complete neglect by recent
generations. None the less is this custom of Nabonidus surprising in a
Babylonian king.

Perhaps the chief work of Nabonidus was the
restoration, the
rebuilding, indeed, of the temple of the sun, E-babbara, in the ancient
city of Sippar. Forty-five years before, Nebuchadrezzar had restored
this temple, probably to honor the people of Sippar and attach them
loyally to his person. Its walls were now fallen, and in this we see a
curious comment either upon the carelessness of Nebuchadrezzar's
workmen or the partial character of his restoration. No such work as
that would satisfy the careful Nabonidus. The sun god Shamash was first
supplied with temporary quarters for his occupancy. Then the temple was
razed to the ground, and the foundations examined for the name of the
first builder. Nebuchadrezzar had not found it when his restorations
were made, and it was not found now until the excavations had been
carried far beneath the surface. Then at last appeared the old corner
stone, and upon it the name of Naram-Sin, who bad caused it to be laid
three thousand two hundred years before.454
The finding of this stone so filled Nabonidus with delight that he is
moved to say that Shamash himself had shown it to him. In such words
would an Assyrian king have celebrated a bloody victory over men who
died to save their own firesides! Then exactly upon that same site,
moving an inch neither this way nor that, the stone was laid again,
with all splendor of ceremony and of honor. Above it rose the new
temple more splendid than the old. For its roof no less than five
thousand cedar beams were required, while still more of the precious
wood had to be used for its great doors. So the new temple was
finished, and into it was the god Shamash led by the hand of Nabonidus,
with rejoicing, with display of all devotion, and with prayers to
Shamash that his care might be about the king who had thus honored him.

At about the same time, and perhaps immediately
afterward, Nabonidus
began the restoration of the temple E-ulbar, the shrine of the goddess
Anunit, in the city of Sippar-Anunit. In the same manner as before he
sought the foundation stone, but this time without such intense
earnestness, and also without success. He was satisfied with the
discovery of the foundation stone of Shagarakti-Buriash,455 upon which he
laid anew the
foundations, and then reerected the temple. To this new home the
goddess was introduced with gifts and with prayers. Not for himself
only were these prayers offered, but also for the future. It was the
desire of Nabonidus that in the days to come other kings might be
raised up to rebuild the temple when his work should have outlived its
days and the temple again be in decay.

But there were other great works yet to be done, and
the plans of
the king for building not empires, but temples, had full sway in his
active mind. His thoughts were continually turning far away from
Babylon and its neighboring cities to a great city in the far north.
Harran, a name once great in the history of the peoples of the
Euphrates and the Tigris, had for centuries been of little moment. The
Manda had ruined its streets and buildings, and destroyed its
commercial importance. The great temple of Sin, the holiest shrine in
all the north country, a temple bound by ancient ties to the great
temple of Sin in Ur of the south land, was in ruins. The Manda had
passed by, and as in their hearts there 'was no reverence for Sin, his
temple fell before their destructive wave, and lay a ghastly heap of
ruins, its bricks melting away into mud. To the eye of reason it might
seem as though the power of Sin were small that he could not even
defend his own house from such despoilers. But not so to the faith of
Nabonidus, for to his thought Sin had been angry and had suffered the
Manda-nay, had caused them-to break down his house. How better could he
punish his worshipers, if that were his will, than to take away from
their hearts the solace of worship in his temple?

At the very beginning of the reign of Nabonidus he
dreamed a dream.
Before him, as in a vision, stood the great gods Marduk and Sin. Then
spoke Marduk and said, "Nabonidus, king of Babylon, with the horses of
thy wagons, bring bricks, build E-Khulkhul, and let Sin, the great
lord, have his dwelling therein." In fear answered Nabonidus, "The
temple, which thou hast commanded me to build, the Manda surround it,
and widespread are his forces." But answered Marduk, "The Manda, of
whom thou speakest, they, their country, and the kings their allies are
no more." Before the great god had commanded the rebuilding of this
temple he had arranged to remove the obstacle of a warlike force. It
was well that he had. An Assyrian king would have attacked any force
about an honored god's temple, driven it away, and then rebuilt; so
would the old Babylonians, but this new apostle of building would have
none of war. Even upon the god's assurance that the Manda were no more
about Harran, Nabonidus shrank in fear from the task. At last duty
drove him on, and he essayed the great work. Upon all his vast empire
he laid a levy for men for the work. From Gaza, on the borders of
Egypt, from far beyond the Euphrates, from the eastern limits of his
empire they came-governors, princes, kings-to help with the work. It
was not long since the temple had last been rebuilt, for Asshurbanapal
(668-625 B. C.) had rebuilt it upon the foundations which Shalmaneser
II (859-825 B. C.) had laid. Stronger than before arose the great new
walls. Upon them, for the roof, were placed great cedar beams from the
Amanus, while doors of sweet-smelling cedar swung to and fro upon their
fastenings. So great was the glory of the new temple that the whole
city of Harran shone "like the new moon."456
In this new home, with prayer and joyful ceremony, was Sin, with his
companions, brought, and another work of duty and honor had been added
to the glories of the reign of Nabonidus. But in all this there is no
word of the affairs of state. The gods were honored, but what of men?
The. day of judgment was slowly moving on. While Nabonidus built
temples, remained away from Babylon, and looked not upon his army,
another people of a fresh and almost untried race were husbanding old
and seeking new strength for the undoing of all this splendor. The hour
of their triumph had almost come.

The beginnings of new powers in the world's history
are usually
obscure, and for later ages difficult to trace out. So is it with the
beginnings of that power which had slowly been preparing to engulf
Babylonia. Some steps in its progress may now be regarded as reasonably
clear, and these must note be followed. When Nineveh fell it was not at
the behest of Babylonia only. A new power, fresh from a long rest and
not wasted by civilization's insidious pressure, had contributed to
that overthrow. This new people was the Manda, and in the years that
followed the Manda had not been idle. To them had fallen in the
partition of the Assyrian empire the whole of the old land of Assyria,
with northern Babylonia. The very ownership of such territory as this
was itself a call to the making of an empire. To this the Manda had set
themselves, and with extraordinary and rapid success. While
Nebuchadrezzar lived they maintained peace with him and offered no
threats against Babylonia. To the north and west their forces spread.
These movements we cannot trace in detail. From the Manda, who were men
of action, and not writers of books, there have come to us no stories
of conquest. From the events which follow, of which we have Babylonian
accounts, we can trace with reasonable certainty, even though broadly,
their progress. As early as 560 B. C. their border had been extended as
far west as the river Halys, which served as the boundary between them
and the kingdom of Lydia, over which Croesus, of proverbial memory, was
now king (560-546 B. C.). If no violent end came to a victorious people
such as the Manda now were, it could not be long before the rich
plains, the wealthy cities, and the great waterways of Babylonia would
tempt them southward and the great clash would come. If to such brute
force of conquest as they had already abundantly shown they should add
gifts for organization and administration, there was no reason why all
their possessions should not be welded again into a great empire, as
the Assyrians had done before with a large part of them. Their king was
now Astyages,457
or, as
the Babylonian inscriptions name him, Ishtuvegu.458
Our knowledge of him is too scant to admit of a judgment as to his
character. A man of war of extraordinary capacity he certainly was, but
perhaps little else. However that may be, he was not to accomplish the
ruin of Nabonidus. What he had gained was to be used to that end by
another, and he was now preparing.

In Anshan, a province in the land of Elam, a great
man had arisen.
From Elam for centuries no impulse had been given in the world's
history. The people had rested. Kings had ruled over them, indeed, but
their influence had been little beyond their own borders. When Cyrus
was horn, son of Kambyses, a place was ready for him, and greatness
soon found it. Cyrus, king of Anshan-the title had no high sound, and
to it were added no other titles of rule in other lands. But in Cyrus
the primary power of conquest was strong. He began at once a career of
almost unparalleled conquest, and later displayed in extraordinary
degree the power so to organize the result of one victory as to make it
contributory to the next. His first foe was naturally Astyages, king of
the Manda, whose attention he had attracted. We do not know what deeds
of Cyrus led Astyages to determine upon attacking him, whether he had
made reprisals upon the borders of the empire of the Manda, or had
shown else where ability which might later prove dangerous to the
aspirations of the Manda. In 553 B. C. Astyages led an army against
this new Asiatic conqueror. All the advantages seemed to lie upon the
side of Astyages. He had victories behind him, he had the levies of an
empire already vast on which to draw. But these and all other
advantages were overturned by treachery. His own troops rebelled
against him and delivered him into the hands of Cyrus,459 and that
bound as a
prisoner. Cyrus then took Ecbatana, sacked it,460
and overwhelmed the state. In an hour he had leaped from the position
of king of Anshan, a rank hardly greater than petty prince, to the
proud position of king of the Manda. A whole empire already made was
his. Well might he assume a new title and call himself king of the
Parsu--out of which has come to us the word "Persians." King of the
Persians-in that new title of Cyrus was gathered all the impetus of a
new and terrible force in the world. For his coming the day of judgment
had waited. The day of great Semitic conquerors was waning, a new
conqueror of the great unknown Indo-European races had arisen, and a
new day had thus dawned. What did it mean for humanity--for
civilization?

The sudden victory of Cyrus over the empire of the
Manda filled the
whole western world with alarm. The empire of Cyrus now extended to the
Halys, and beyond that river was Lydia. How soon Cyrus would cross it
none knew. He was probably only waiting until he could assimilate the
forces of the Manda with his own; for such a man could be content with
no dominion that was less than world-wide. Croesus determined to strike
the first blow himself, but not single-handed. He formed a
confederation in the spring of 546, and almost every power of
significance in the whole west joined it. Amasis, king of Egypt;
Nabonidus, king of Babylon;461
Croesus, king of Lydia, and even his friendly allies, the Spartans462--these formed
an array that
must be invincible. The leader was Croesus, and that he should fail
seemed impossible. Behind him was an army that had never known defeat,
beneath him were the sure oracles of Delphi. But the confidence of
Croesus was too great; he would not even wait for the expected
contributions of men from his allies; with trust in his gods and in his
own army he started out to meet Cyrus, and entered Kappadokia. Cyrus
met him with all his forces. The unexpected, the impossible, happened,
and Croesus was defeated. Cyrus pursued, and again Croesus gave battle,
in the valley of Hermos. In the army of Cyrus were bodies of men
mounted on camels;463
before them stood the Lydian cavalry. It was the barbarous east mounted
upon its uncanny and clumsy animal of the desert opposed to the
civilization of the west with its clean-limbed horses. But the
barbarians on camels threw the cavalry into confusion, and again was
Croesus beaten, and this time overwhelmed. He retreated to the citadel
of Sardes, and sent messengers to his allies begging for assistance,
which, naturally enough, never came. In fourteen days Sardes fell, and
Croesus was in the hands of Cyrus.464
The Lydian empire was also swallowed up in Persia. Croesus was taken in
the autumn of 546, and before the end of 545 the entire peninsula of
Asia Minor was a part of the Persian empire, divided into satrapies and
administered with a strong hand. Even the isles of the sea were giving
submission to the power that had arisen out of the wilds of Asia,
ghostlike in a night, whose ruler was but a year before unknown in name
even to the Greeks of the mainland, who had now become his subjects.

Cyrus had now fully prepared the way for the
absorption of
Babylonia, with its valuable Syro-Phoenician states reaching even to
the Mediterranean. During all these years Nabonidus had been building
temples and searching out interesting bits of ancient history. If he
had been consolidating his defenses and preparing to hold his empire
against this wave of barbarians, the course of human history might have
been widely different. Even Greece might have been spared the need of
its heroic sacrifice in the defense of all the west had gained, from
the hordes, full-blooded and strong, out of the mountains of Elam. But
Nabonidus had not prepared for war or for defense, and it was now too
late. In the year 549, when the Lydian king was making ready to fight
to the bitter end, Nabonidus was in Tema, as the Chronicle465 shows. Of 548
we know
nothing,466
but there is
no risk in supposing that he was still absorbed in temples and their
repairs. In 547, so hurried the years along, he was still in Tema, and
did not even enter Babylon to pay reverence at the great shrine of the
gods or to attend to the pressing business of state. On the fifth day
of the month of Nisan the king's mother died at Dur-Karasu, on the
Euphrates, above Sippar. For her great mourning was made, and still
there is no word of setting Babylon or the land in preparation. Yet in
this same year-and the Babylonian Chronicle is the witness for it-the
threat of Cyrus against Babylon was made in no uncertain manner. On the
fifteenth day of the same month of Nisan he crossed the Tigris below
Arbela and entered Assyria. Here he took possession of part of the land
which appears to have been partly or wholly independent of Nabonidus.
The name which Cyrus gave to the land is broken off in the Chronicle,467 but we shall
probably not go
far astray if we conjecture that some petty prince468 had here set up a little
kingdom.

Babylonian soil was now possessed by Cyrus. It was
the beginning of
the end. The next year opens with the same melancholy record that the
king was in Tema.469
His
son, Bel-shar-usur, was with the army in Accad.470
From this time on it is proper to say that lie was easily the chief
actor, on the Babylonian side, in the tragedy. Of him we know little
indeed. To the Jews his name was an object of hatred, for he had shown
contempt for them and the God of whom they would teach the world. But
from the Babylonian point of view he shines forth in all that we know
of him as a man intensely national, able, earnest in defense of his
native land. That he helped greatly to postpone the now impending ruin
is highly probable. But he had no support from his father--the man of
books. In this year (546), on the twenty-first day of Sivan, there was
some difficulty with Elamites in Babylonia.471
We do not know its meaning or its results; for the Chronicle is broken
off and leaves us in tantalizing fashion. But that this was only
another move in the same general plan is at least probable. After this
year the Babylonian Chronicle again breaks off abruptly, and for six
years we know nothing of the progress of events. Into these years
probably went some of the building operations which have already been
described. Nabonidus cared, or seemed to care, little for his country.
It was his gods only that filled the horizon for him.472

When next the chronicler resumes his story the
seventeenth year of
the king's reign has come. It is the year 539. The army of Cyrus is
somewhere in northern Babylonia. The great Persian empire is now ready
to complete and round out its borders by the addition of Babylonia,
with even its imperial capital. The opening lines of the year's annals
are broken off, but if they were still preserved, we should probably
not find in them the fateful words, " The king was in Tema." He was now
fully aroused to the gravity of the situation, and was active in
measures of preparation. It seems almost irony to say that these
measures were not for practical defense against a terrible foe; they
were not for a prolonged siege. Such preparations would have been both
natural and in a sense easy of accomplishment. Nebuchadrezzar had made
Babylon the strongest fortress in all the world. Even a small force of
brave men could have held it for years against any force which Cyrus
could muster; and that there were brave men still in Babylon's army
there is every reason to believe. But the preparations of Nabonidus
were not for national safety and independence, they were not for the
safety of men at all. In the crucial hour of his country's history his
whole thought was of gods, and not of men. He would save gods, men
might save themselves as best they might. From every part of the land
of Babylonia the statues of the gods were hastily removed from the
temples which Nabonidus had built with such exaggeration of painstaking
care, as well as from other temples upon which he had laid no hand of
restoration-if, indeed, there were any such. From Marad and from Kish
came gods of whose worth or power the history of Babylonia has heard
little; from Kharsag-kalama came Belit and her goddesses. By the end of
the month Elul all the gods and goddesses had been brought to Babylon.
Nabonidus appears to have himself remained in Sippar, perhaps to avoid
the danger of capture and death in the capital, whose ultimate fall
into the hands of Cyrus he must have foreseen, or rather, perhaps, that
he might in the hour of his distress lean heavily on the arm of
Shamash, whom he had so signally honored in the magnificent temple of
E-babbara.

While gods were hastening thus to be crowded into
the spaces of
Babylon's temples the army of Cyrus was slowly marching on, and
apparently without resistance. Would all Babylonia be his without one
single blow? It were a disgrace indeed, and the land was spared that
final ignominy. When Cyrus reached the city of Upi the army of Accad
opposed his advance,473
but whether Belshar-usur, who had commanded it, was now in the van does
not appear. The opposition was in vain, and Cyrus drove it before him
and moved southward resistlessly. Sippar was taken, without a blow, on
the fourteenth day of Talrlmuz, and Nabonidus fled. Two days later the
van of the army of Cyrus entered Babylon, as the gates swung open
without resistance474
to
admit it. Cyrus himself was not in command, but had remained in the
background while Ugbaru (Gobryas), governor of Gutium, led the advance.
Nabonidus was taken in the city, whither he had fled from Sippar.

The fall of Babylon in this fashion is one of the
surprises of
history. That a city which had bred warriors enough to rule the whole
civilized world should at last lay down its arms and tamely submit--it
is impossible, and yet it is true. Nay, more is true: Ugbaru had indeed
entered the city without the use of force, but there is no word that
his presence was welcome. He must surely have been received with many a
surly look, with mutterings of hate, with ill-concealed disgust. But on
the third day of Marcheshwan Cyrus held entry into the city. It was a
triumphal entrance, and all Babylon greeted him with plaudits and
hailed him as a deliverer. So fickle was the populace, so ready to say,
"The king is dead; long live the king."

Babylon was now in the possession of an entirely new
race of men.
The Indo-Europeans, silent for centuries, had come at last to dominion.
Nineveh, the greatest center for the pure Semitic stock, had fallen
first; it was now Babylon's hour, and Babylon likewise was fallen. The
fall of a city which had long wielded a power almost world-wide would
at any period be a matter of great moment. But this fall of Babylon was
even more than this. Babylon was now the representative city not merely
of a world-wide power, it was the representative of Semitic power. The
Semites had built the first empire of commanding rank in the world when
Hammurabi conquered Sumer and Accad and made Babylon capital of several
kingdoms at once. Out of this center had gone the colonists who had
built another and, after a time, a great empire at Nineveh. For
centuries two Semitic centers of power had vied with each other for the
dominion of the world. Both had held it, each in his turn. For nearly a
century Nineveh had been in the hands of another race, and the Semitic
civilization had been supplanted there. Babylon had been made the
center of a new world power by the Chaldean people, but they also were
Semites. This branch of the Semitic people had had a short lease of
power indeed. The power was now taken from them as the representatives
of the Semitic race. Never from that hour until the age of Islam was a
Semitic power to command a world-wide empire. The power of the Semite
seemed hopelessly broken in that day, and that alone makes the peaceful
fall of Babylon a momentous event.

But Babylon stood for more than mere Semitic power.
It stood in a
large sense for Semitic civilization. As has been so often pointed out
before in these pages, Assyria represented far more than Babylonia the
prowess of the Semite upon fields of battle. Babylon bad stood for
Semitic civilization, largely intermixed with many elements, yet
Semitic after all. Here were the great libraries of the Semitic race.
Here were the scholars who copied so painstakingly every little omen or
legend that had come down to them out of the hoary past. Here were the
men who calculated eclipses, watched the moon's changes, and looked
nightly from observatories upon the stately march of constellations
over the sky. Here were the priests who preserved knowledge of the
ancient Sumerian language, that its sad plaints and solemn prayers
might be kept for use in temple worship. Much of all this was worthy of
preservation-if not for any large usefulness, certainly for its record
of human progress upward. All this was now fallen into alien hands.
Would it be preserved? Would it be ruthlessly or carelessly destroyed?
The greatest thoughts of the Semitic mind and the greatest emotions of
its heart were not, indeed, Babylonian, and even if they were, they
could not die. Not for many centuries would the Semite be able to found
another such center. It was indeed a solemn hour of human history.

The glory of Babylon is ended. The long pro. cession
of princes,
priests, and kings has passed by. No city so vast had stood on the
world before it. No city with a history so long has even yet appeared.
From the beginnings of human history it had stood. It was in other
hands now, and it would soon be a shapeless mass of ruins, standing
alone in a sad, untilled desert.

APPENDIX A

LITERATURE

THE references given in footnotes indicate with
sufficient clearness
the bibliography of the subject, but for convenience of reference the
titles of books dealing directly with the history are here assembled,
accompanied by brief comments to facilitate their use.

1. EXCAVATIONS AND DECIPHERMENT

[The account of excavations and discoveries is on
pp. 18-41 and
74-150. It is well presented, but pays little attention to the work of
early travelers, and takes but slight notice of the most recent work,
except that of the University of Pennsylvania, which is well handled.]

HOMMEL, FR. Geschichte Babyloniens and Assyriens.
Berlin, 1885.

[The sections relating to discovery and decipherment
are on pp.
58-134, and are more detailed than those of Kaulen.]

EVETTS, B. T. A. New Light on the Holy Land. London,
1891. [Contains
on pp. 79-129 a very useful narrative of discoveries and decipherment,
with much attention to early travelers.]

2. HISTORY

KING, LEONARD WILLIAM. Articles "Babylonia" and
"Assyria"in
Encyclopaedia Biblica, edited by the Rev. T. K. Cheyne and J.
Sutherland Black, vol. i. New York, 1899. [Very valuable outlines of
the history, supplemented also by separate articles on important
reigns, such as that of Asshurbanapal. ]

SMITH, GEORGE. The History of Babylonia, edited and
brought up to
date by the Rev. A. H. Sayce. London and New York, 1895. [A brief and
useful little book, but already needing revision. A similar volume by
George Smith on Assyria, from the Earliest Times to the Fall of
Nineveh, has not been revised.]

TIELE, C. P. Babylonisch-Assyrische Geschichte.
Gotha, 1886. [A work
of great ability and distinction, and, though superseded in parts by
more recent work, still indispensable for the advanced student.]

WINCKLER, HUGO. Geschichte Babyloniens and
Assyriens. Leipzig, 1892.
[An important book to be used in supplement of Tiele. Very suggestive.]

The following books, while treating the history of
Babylonia and
Assyria only as part of the general history of the Orient, are,
nevertheless, important as discussing phases of the history
supplementary to the special histories, or as being written by
Assyriologists who have given special emphasis to Assyria and Babylonia

HELMOLT, HANS F. Weltgeschichte. Leipzig, 1899.
[Vol. iii, part 1,
contains Das Alte West Asien, pp. 1-248, by Dr. Hugo Winckler, and is
important not only because it is attractively written, but also because
it sometimes gives a newer view of events than is given in the author's
more detailed history mentioned above.]

The Struggle of the Nations, Egypt, Syria, and
Assyria. Edited by A.
H. Sayce, translated by M. L. McClure. New York, 1897.

The Passing of the Empires, 850 to 330 B. C. Edited
by A. H. Sayce,
translated by M. L. McClure. New York, 1900. [These three volumes
supersede Professor Maspero's former treatises. They are magnificently
illustrated, well translated, and are admirably supplied with
references to the literature of every question relating to the
history.]

MCCURDY, JAMES FREDERICK. History, Prophecy, and the
Monuments, or
Israel and the Nations. Vol. i. To the Downfall of Samaria. New York,
1894. Vol. i. To the Fall of Nineveh. New York, 1896. Vol. iii,
completing the work, promised soon.

SAYCE, A. H. Early Israel and the Surrounding
Nations. New York,
1899. [Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 199-264. This interesting sketch
supplements Smith's History of Babylonia and Sayce's Primer of
Assyriology.]

This list might be much extended if works of popular
character were
added to it. It is, however, intentionally restricted to works of
scientific importance, based upon original sources.

For more extended bibliography of Babylonia and
Assyria, comprising
not merely the political history, but also religion, literature, and
social life, the following books may be consulted:

JASTROW, MORRIS, JR. The Religion of Babylonia and
Assyria. Boston,
1898. (Bibliography, pp. 705-738.) [An exhaustive and accurate
conspectus of the literature up to 1898.]

KAULEN, FR. Assyrien and Babylonien nach den
neuesten Entdeckungen,
5th ed. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899. (Litteratur, pp. 284-304). [This
bibliography is arranged chronologically, and is exceedingly valuable
from 1620 to 1880, though many additions ought even in those years to
be made. After 1880 it falls off very much in completeness, and extends
only to 1889. It is a pity that recent editions should not have
extended it.]

American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literatures (Continuing
Hebraica). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [This journal is
published quarterly and contains an accurate and exhaustive
bibliography by w. Muss-Arnolt.]

APPENDIX B

THE DESTRUCTION OF SENNACHERIBIS ARMY

THE following is the Egyptian tradition of the great
pestilence as
Herodotus has reproduced it:

"The next king, I was told, was a
priest of Vulcan,
called Sethos. This monarch despised and neglected the warrior class of
the Egyptians, as though he did not need their services. Among other
indignities which he offered them he took from them the lands which
they had possessed under all the previous kings, consisting of twelve
acres of choice land for each warrior. Afterward, therefore, when
Sennacherib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army
into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his aid. On
this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary,
and before the image of the god bewailed the fate which impended over
him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood
at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet
the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send
those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream,
collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were
none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and
with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt,
and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one
another there came in the night a multitude of field mice, which
devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy and ate the thongs
by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their
flight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to
defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan a
stone statue of Seth6s, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to
this effect: ° Look on me and learn to reverence the gods.'"475

In explanation of this narrative it
must be
remembered that the mouse was a symbol of pestilence (1 Sam. vi, 5),
and that Apollo, as the plague-dealer, is called Smintheus, mouse-god.

APPENDIX C

THE DEFENSES OF BABYLON

THE investigations of the last few
years have thrown
considerable light upon the walls of the city of Babylon, and the
excavations already begun by the German expedition on the site476 are likely to
set at rest
some long-standing subjects of controversy. It is not the province of
this book to discuss questions of topography, but the narrative of
Nebuchadrezzar's elaborate reconstruction of the defenses of Babylon
may perhaps be made more clear by a comparison with the two chief
sources of our knowledge which are here given in translation.

The following is the description
given by Herodotus:

"Assyria477
possesses a vast number of
great cities, whereof the most renowned and strongest at this time was
Babylon, whither, after the fall of Nineveh, the seat of government had
been removed. The following is a description of the place: The city
stands on a broad plain, and is an exact square, a hundred and twenty
furlongs in length each way,478
so that the entire circuit is four hundred and eighty furlongs.479 while such is
its size, in
magnificence there is no other city that approaches it. It is
surrounded, in the first place, by a broad and deep moat, full of
water, behind which rises a wall fifty royal cubits in width and two
hundred in height.480
(The royal cubit is longer by three fingers' breadth than the common
cubit.)

"And here I may not
omit to tell the
use to which the mold dug out of the great moat was turned, nor the
manner wherein the wall was wrought. As fast as they dug the moat the
soil which they got from the cutting was made into bricks, and when a
sufficient number were completed they baked the bricks in kilns. Then
they set to building, and began with bricking the borders of the moat,
after which they proceeded to construct the wall itself, using
throughout for their cement hot bitumen, and interposing a layer of
wattled reeds at every thirtieth course of the bricks. On the top,
along the edges of the wall, they constructed buildings of a single
chamber facing one another, leaving between them room for a four-horse
chariot to turn. In the circuit of the wall are a hundred gates, all of
brass, with brazen lintels and side posts. The bitumen used in the work
was brought to Babylon from the Is, a small stream which flows into the
Euphrates at the point where the city of the same name stands,481 eight days'
journey from
Babylon. Lumps of bituman are found in great abundance in this river.

"The city is divided
into two portions
by the river which runs through the midst of it. This river is the
Euphrates, a broad, deep, swift stream, which rises in Armenia and
empties itself into the Erythraean Sea. The city wall is brought down
on both sides to the edge of the stream; thence, from the corners of
the wall, there is carried along each bank of the river a fence of
burnt bricks. The houses are mostly three and four stories high; the
streets all run in straight lines, not only those parallel to the
river, but also the cross streets, which lead down to the water side.
At the river end of these cross streets are low gates in the fence that
skirts the stream, which are like the great gates in the outer wall, of
brass, and open on the water.

"The outer wall is the
main defense of
the city. There is, however, a second inner482
wall, of less thickness than the first, but very little inferior to it
in strength. The center of each division of the town was occupied by a
fortress. In the one stood the palace of the kings, surrounded by a
wall of great strength and size; in the other was the sacred precinct
of Jupiter Belus, a square inclosure two furlongs each way, with gates
of solid brass; which was also remaining in my time. In the middle of
the precinct there was a tower of solid masonry, a furlong in length
and breadth, upon which was raised a second tower, and on that a third,
and so on up to eight. The ascent to the top is on the outside, by a
path which winds round all the towers. When one is about halfway up one
finds a resting place and seats, where persons are wont to sit sometime
on their way to the summit. On the topmost tower there is a spacious
temple, and inside the temple stands a couch of unusual size, richly
adorned, with a golden table by its side. There is no statue of any
kind set up in the place, nor is the chamber occupied of nights by
anyone but a single native woman, who, as the Chaldeans, the priests of
this god, affirm, is chosen for himself by the deity out of all the
women of the land."483

In addition to this
description of the
city's defenses Herodotus has also given an account of the supposed
works of Semiramis and Nitocris,484
but this is much less valuable than the passage quoted above.

It is evident that
Herodotus knew only
of two walls, one of which had already disappeared in his day, and that
he had no knowledge of the outer defense wall beyond Nimitti-Bel, which
was begun by Nabopolassar and finished by Nebuchadrezzar. We should
therefore have a false impression of the outer defense of the city were
we wholly dependent on his witness. He has indeed obviously mingled
what he saw by his own eyes with what he was told by his cicerone, and
it is no longer possible to differentiate them clearly.485

The badly preserved
fragments of
Berossos486
show that he
had originally written of a threefold defense wall of the city, and
this is confirmed fully by the passages from the text of Nebuchadrezzar
which follows. This is translated with as close adhesion to the
original-as possible, in order to facilitate reference to the
Babylonian text or to the transliterations of it, to which reference is
given in the notes.

4
Whatever may be thought of Esarhaddon's statements concerning Belbani
there is at least evidence that a king of this name actually existed,
for Scheil has found a tablet dated in the reign of Bel-bani and
written in archaic Babylonian script (Recueil de Travaux, xix,
p. 59).

5
It is quite probable that our ignorance of this period is due simply to
the fact that excavations hitherto made in Assyria have been chiefly
upon sites, such as Kuyunjik and Khorsabad, famous rather in the later
than in the earlier periods of Assyrian history. When Kal'ah Shergat,
the site of ancient Asshur, is explored we may perhaps be able to fill
out some of the lacunoe in the earliest times.

6
Hatshepsowet, Thutmosis II, and Thutmosis III reigned together from
about 1516 to 1449. Itwas in the twenty-second year that the
advance began upon Syria, Thutmosis III being then sole ruler of Egypt.
See Petrie, Mistory of Egypt during the XVIIth and XVIIIth
Dynasties, 3d ed., 1899, and Steindorff, Die
Blidezeit des Pharaonen Reichs. Leipzig, 1900.

7
Hommel (Dictionary of Bible, ed. Hastings, i, p. 180) places
this tribute paying in the reign of Asshur-belnisbeshu or Puzur-Asshur,
but this is scarcely probable. The question is purely chronological,
and differences of opinion are particularly allowable.

8
The quotation is from the Annals of Thutmosis III. See translation in
Petrie, op. cit., p. 112.

12
No letter of his to Egypt has been preserved, but Asshur-uballit
mentions the correspondence. Letter No. 9, lines 19-21. in Winckler's
edition. For translation see Tell-el-Anzarna Letters, part i,
p. 31.

21
It is, however, to be noted that Assyrian colonists were settled in
distant countries at a very early date. The Kappadokian tablets would
seem to show that Assyrians were settled near Kaisariyeh as early as
1400 B. C.

36
The chief source of knowledge of the reign of Tiglathpileser is found
in the eight-sided prism, four copies of which were found at Kalah
Shergat, two in excellent preservation and two in fragments. The text
is substantially the same in all the copies and is published I R. 9-16,
and in Winckler, Sammlung von Keilschrifttexten, i, plates
1-25. It is transliterated and trans. lated in Lotz, Die
Inschriften Tiglathpileser's I, Leipzig, 1880, and also by
Winckler, in Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 14-47. There
is an English translation by Professor Sayce, with useful geographical
notes, in Records of the Past, New Series, i, 92-121. This was
the text used by the Royal Asiatic Society to demonstrate the
correctness of the method of decipherment. See above, vol. i, pp.
194-197. Besides this fine prism there have also been preserved some
fragmentary annals of the first ten years of his reign erroneously
ascribed originally to Asshur-ish-ishi and published III R. 5, Nos.
1-6, and by Winckler, Sammlung, pp. 26-29. Notes upon portions
of them are given by Lotz, op. cit., pp. 193, 194, and by
Bruno Messnier, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, ix, pp. 101, ff.
The names and titles of the king are given in two brief texts found at
the so-called grotto of Sebeneh-Su (III R. 4, No. 6; Schrader, Die
Keilinschriften am Eingange der Quellgrotte des Sebeneh-Su, Berlin,
1885; Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp. 48, 49), and at
Kalah Shergat (I R. 6, No. V; Winckler, Sammlung, p. 81).

45
Tiele (Geschichte, p. 159,Anm. 2) has joined Kbaria
with Lullume, but on insufficient grounds. Streck (Zeitschrift fur
Assyriologie, xiv, 160, 161) would locate it in the mountains of
Bohtan, east of Birkhu, and this, seems to fit the general situation
well.

48
Dayaeni, known in the Chaldian inscriptions as the kingdom "of the son
of Diaus," is located along the Murad-chai near Melasgerd. See Sayce,
"Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van," Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, xiv, p. 399; Records of the Past, New Series, i,
p. 106, footnote 6.

49
This land lay in the northwest, beyond the Euphrates, and extended
southward from about Malatiyeh toward the Mediterranean. Its conquest
introduced Tiglathpileser to the plains of Syria.

51
The location of the Upper Sea is still an undecided problem. It is
identified with the Black Sea (Eduard Meyer, Tiele), with Lake Van
(Schrader, Sayce), with the Gulf of Issus (George Rawlinson, Hommel),
and with the Caspian (Menant).

54
I R. 28, 2. Comp. translation by Peiser, in Keilinschrift. Bibl,
i, 124. While sailing the king slew a nakhiru, but we do not
know what the word signifies. Sayce suggests "dolphin." Early
Israel and the Surrounding Nations, p. 218.

55
This follows from an inscription of Asshur-bel-kala which was found at
Kuyunjik--that is, Nineveh--which comes from a palace of the
king. It la published I R. 6, No. V, and republished more correctly, Journal
of the Royal Asiatic Society, April, 1892, and again translated by
S. A. Strong, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, pp. 76-79.

62
The whole question of this king's personality and date is exceedingly
obscure. If he is the first king of the eighth dynasty, he must have
reigned for thirty-six years, for that numeral appears clearly in
Knudtzon's copy in place of the thirteen years previously given. (Comp.
Knudtzox, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnengott, i,60,
with Schrader in Sitzungsberichte der Berl. Ak. der Wiss., 1887,
pp. 579-607, 947-951.) Of his name there is no doubt, for he is
mentioned on the curious boundary stone of Ninib.kudurusur (British
Museum, No. 102), published by Belser, Beitrage zur Assyiologie,
ii, 171, ff.As Peiser has correctly pointed out in his
translation (Keilinschrifliche Bibliothek, iv, 82, ff.), the
stone has on it writing of different dates, and this, of course, adds
to the difficulty. Peiser's difficulty about the number of years of
reign assigned to Nabu-ukin-abli is removed if the incorrect 13 of the
older publications ofthe King List be corrected into 36, in
accordance with Knudtzon's excellent copy.

71
This fine monolith, discovered by Layard at Nimroud, was first
published by him (Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Character, plates
1-11) in a very fragmentary manner. It is republished I R. 17-26. The
first English translation by Rodwell (Records of the Past, First
Series, pp. 37-80) Is well supplanted by the new translation by Sayce,
with numerous valuable Reographical and historical notes (Records
of the Past, New Series, ii, pp. 128-177). There is a very
valuable translation of col. i, lines 1-99, with notes, by Lhotzky (Die
Annalen Assurnazirpal's, Munchen, 1884), but this was
unfortunately never carried further. The entire text is translated by
Peiser, Keitinschrift. Bibl., 1, pp. 50-119.

73
So Sayce, Records of the Past, New Series, ii, p. 138, note 2.
Maspero (The Passing of the Empires, p. 14, footnote 1) would
localize it still more closely in the "cazas of Varto and Boulanik in
the sandjak of Mush." Its capital, Gubbe (Sayce reads Libe), he would
provisionally identify with Gop (Vital Quinet, La Turquie d'Asie,
ii, pp. 588, 589).

74
There is much dispute about the location of the Kirruri. The narrative
of Asshurnazirpal's progress makes it plain that they were close to the
Numme, or Nimme. Delattre (Encore un mot sur la Geographie Ass.,
p. 10, note 4) is therefore certainly wrong in locating them near the
sources of the Tigris. See, further, Billerbeck, Das Sandschak
Suleimania, pp. 16, ff.

77
The location is certain. See Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies, 2d ed.,
i, p. 205, and ii, p. 84, and Hommel, Geschichte Babyloniens and
Assyriens, pp. 557, 558. Layard (Nineveh and Babylon, pp.
230-242) found the remains of a palace on the site, which had been
decorated with has reliefs and guarded with lions and winged bulls.

84
Site uncertain. Rawlinson ("Assyrian Discovery," The Athenaeum, 1868,
vol. i, p. 228) would locate it at Kurkh, near the Tigris, east of
Diarbekir. At this place was found a monolith of Asshurnazirpal, and
this proves that he was in some way identified with the place. There
is, however, no real proof that it was Tuskha.

87
The location is quite unknown. Maspero (Tlte Passing of the
Empires, p. 26, note 1) would identify it with the modern Kerkuk.
Billerbeck (DasSandschak, etc., p. 36) would place it
farther to the southeast, "west of Segirme and Chalchalan-dagh."

89
Rassam in making excavations at Abu Habba found a piece of asphalt
pavement, beneath which "an inscribed earthenware casket, with a lid,
was discovered. . .about three feet below the surface. Inside it was a
stone tablet eleven and one half inches long by seven inches wide"
(Rassam, Asshur and the Land of Nimrod, p. 402). It is
inscribed minutely on both sides with three columns of writing, and on
the obverse at the top is a small bas-relief representing religious
ceremonies before the figure of the sun god (see illustrations in
Rassam, ibid., or in Hommel, Geschichte, p.596).
Pinches announced its discovery (Proceedings of the Society of
Biblica. Archaeology, iii, pp. 109, ff.), and later published part
of it (ibid., viii, pp. 164, ff.). The entire text is published
V R. 60, 61, and it is translated by Job. Jeremias, Beitrage zur
Assyriologie, i, 268, ff., and by Peiser, Keillinschrift.
Bibl., iii, part 1, pp. 174, ff.

90
There is no indication of the location of either of these Assyrian
strongholds. Maspero (The Passing of the Empires, p. 30, note
4) has this suggestion to make: "A study of the map shows that the
Assyrians could not become masters of the country without occupying the
passes of the Euphrates; I am inclined to think that
Kar-Assur-nazir-pal is El-Zalebiyeh, and Nibarti-assur, Zalebiyeh, the
Zenobia of Roman times. For the ruins of these towns, compare Sachau, Reise
in Syrien and Mesop., pp. 266-269, and Peters, Nippur, or
Explorations and Adventures on the Euphrates, vol. i, pp. 109-114."

91
Maspero (The Passing of the Empires, p.30, note 5)
makes this definite statement: "Bit-Adini appears to have occupied, on
the right bank of the Euphrates, a part of the cazas of Ain Tab,
Rum-Kaleh, and Birejik, that of Suruji, minus the Nakhiyeh of Harra,n,
the larger part of the cazas of Membij and of Rakkah, and part of the
Gaza of Mr, the cazas being those represented on the maps of Vital
Cuinet, La Turquie d'Asie, vol.ii."

92
Asshurnazirpal (col. iii, line 51, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, p.
103) picturesquely describes Kap-rabi thus: "The city was very strong,
like a cloud suspended from heaven."

94
Carchemish stood on the west bank of the Euphrates, above the mouth of
the Sajur. The modern name is variously given by different travelers as
Jerablus (Skene, Wilson, Sayce) or Jerabis (Sachau, Schrader,
Delitzsch). The latter is preferable.

101 Black Obelisk, text
published in Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Characters, 87-98.
It has often been translated in whole or part. The best of the recent
translations are by Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl., i, pp.128-151,
and by Scheil, Records of the Past, New Series, iv, pp. 39,
sqq., the latter with numerous corrections by Sayce.

103 The gate
inscriptions were
secured in the mounds of Balawat by Hormuzd Rassam in 1877. They have
been published and translated by Pinches in Transactions of the
Society of Biblical Archaeology, vii,pp. 83, sqq., and by
Amiaud et Scheil, Inscriptions de Salmanasar I, Paris, 1890,
and also Records of the Past, New Series, iv, pp. 74, sqq.

105 Que is that part of
Cilicia
between the Amanus and the mountains of the Ketis (see Schrader, Keilinschriften
rend Geschichtcforschung, pp. 238242). Winckler's conjecture (Alttestament
Uvctemuchungen, pp. 168, ff.),which would place it in 1
Kings x, 28, is almost certainly correct. See further Benzinger and
Kittel on the passage.

136 "The land of Omri"
is the
usual Assyrian expression for the land of Israel, during a long period.
Omri made so deep an impression upon his neighbors that his country was
named after him.

137 I R. 35, No. 2,
Abel-Winckler, Neilschrifttexte, p.14. Two specimens
of the Nabu statue with the same inscription are in the British Museum.

138 Tiele (Geschichte,
pp.212, 213) holds Sammuramat to be the mother rather than the
wife, and Hommel (Geschichte, pp.630, ff.) follows
this view, giving his reasons for its holding. On the other hand,
Winckler (Geschichte, p. 120, 1) holds to the view that she
was the king's wife.

141 The chief
inscription
material of the reign of Tiglathpileser III is the following: (a) The
Annals, badly defaced by Esarhaddon, the most legible portions of which
are published by Layard, Inscriptions in the Cuneiform Char., plates
34a, etc., and afterward much more accurately by Paul Rost, Die
Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, vol. ii, plates i-xviii. He
has also carefully arranged and translated them into German, ibid.,
i, pp. 2-41. (b) The Slabs of Nimroud, published first by Layard, op.
cit., plates 17,18, and Rost, i, plates xxix-xxxiii. They are well
translated by Rost, i, pp. 42-53, and by Schrader, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, pp. 2-9. (c) The clay tablets are as follows: 1. British
Museum, K. 3751, published II R. 67, and Rost, ii, plates xxxv-xxxviii,
and translated by him, i, pp. 54-77. 2. British Museum, DT. 3, a
duplicate of B. 3751, published by Schrader, Abh. Preuss. Ak. d.
W., 1879, No. viii, plate i and accompanying photograph, and also
by Rost, ii, plate xxxiv. There is an English translation of K. 3751 by
S. Arthur Strong in Records of the Past, New Series, v, pp.
115, ff. (d) The smaller inscriptions, which contain simply lists of
places conquered, are: 1. III R. 10, No. 2, and Rost, ii, plate xxvii,
translated i, pp. 84, 85, and 2. British Museum, B. 2649, Rost, ii,
plate xxiv, C., transliterated i, p. 86.

142 Some assyriologists
(for
example, Tiele, Geschichte, pp. 217, 218; Rost, Die
Keilschrifttexte Tiglat-Pilesers III, i, pp. 13, 14) have held that
Tiglathpileser was considered an enemy, but the expressions in his
texts seem to me to point to a pacific reception. So also Hommel (Geschichte,
pp. 651, 652) and Winckler (Geschichte, pp. 121-123, 222, 223).

152 Sarduris was not
strong
enough to leave his mountain passes. His relation to all these attacks
of the Assyrians has been finely treated in detail by Belek and Lehmann
("Chaldische Forschungen" in Verhandlungen der Berl. anthrop.
Gesell., 1896, pp. 326-336).

158 The inscription
material for
this campaign is badly preserved. The chief source is III R. No. 2,
lines 5-11. See, for valuable discussion of the order of the campaign,
Rost, Tiglathpileser, i, pp. xxviii, ff.

159 2 Kings xvi, 10,
and comp. 2
Kings xxiii, 12. (There is a textual difficulty in the latter passage.
See Benzinger, Commentar, on the verse.)

173 The only records of
the
reign are, 1. A weight with the king's name and legend in Assyrian and
Aramwan, published by Norris in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society, xvi(1856), p. 220, No. 5. Translations are given
in Schrader, Cuneiform Ins. and the 0. T., i, 127, ff., and by
the same in Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, p. 33. 2. A contract
tablet in the British Museum (K. 407), translated by Peiser, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., iii, p, 109, 3.

175 In the Massoretic
text of 2
Kings xvii, 4, the ally of Hoshea is called So (), but the word ought
probably be punctuated Sewe (). In the inscriptions of Sargon he is
called Shabi, and was formerly identified with Shabaka (so Oppert and
Rawlinson). Stade was the first to suggest that he was one of the Delta
kings, and Winckler (Untersuchungen, pp.92-94, 106-108)
produced strong arguments in its favor. He has, however, latterly
changed his mind and considers him a general of the north Arabian land
of Musri (Mittheilungen der Vorderas.Gesell., 1898, i, p. 6).
The argument seems to me insufficient. Winckler's suggestions
concerning Musri are exceedingly fruitful, and many are undoubtedly
correct, but he has carried the matter too far in attempting to
eliminate Egypt almost entirely and supplant it with Musri.

178 The death of
Shalmaneser Iv
took place in 722, which became Sargon's accession year; but the
Assyrians counted 721 as the first year of his reign, full years only
being counted.

179 The following are
the chief
inscriptions of Sargon's reign: (a) The Annals, published
first by Botta, Le Monument de Ninive, plates 63-92, 105-120,
155-160, and with corrections and amendments by Winckler, Die
Keilschrifttexte Sargon's, ii.They are translated into
English by Jules Oppert, Records o f the Past, First Series,
viii, pp. 21-56, but this version is now somewhat antiquated. There is
a good German translation by Winckler, op. cit., i, pp.2-95.
The Annals have come down to us in four recensions, in a fragmentary
condition, and the relations between the recension and between parts of
the fragments are sometimes obscure. For details Winckler must be
consulted, but allusions to some of the problems will be found below.
(b) General Inscription (Inscription des Fastes, Prunk Inschrift), published
by Botta, op. cit., plates 93-104, 121-154, 181, and by Winckler, op.
cit., ii, plates 30-36, and translated by him, ibid., i,
pp. 96135, and into English by Oppert, "The Great Inscription in the
Palace of Khorsabad," in the Records of the Past, First
Series, iv, pp. 1-20. (c) The Inscriptions on the Gateway Pavement,
published by Botta, op. cit., plates 1-21, and by Winckler, op.
cit., ii, plates 36-40, and translated by him, i, pp. 136-163, (d)
Inscription on the Back of the Slabs, published by Botta, op,
cit,, plates 184, ff., and by Winckler, op. cit., ii,
plate 40, and translated by him, i, pp. 164-167. (e) Nimroud
Inscription, published by Layard, Inscriptions in the
Cuneiform Character, plates 33, 34, and translated by Winckler, op.
cit., i, pp. 168-173, and by Peiser, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii,
pp. 34-39. (f) The Stele Inscription, published III R.
11, and translated (in part) by Winckler, op. cit., pp.
174-185. (g) Bull Inscription, published by Botta, op.
cit., plates 22-62, and by Lyon, Keilschrifttexte Sargon's, plates
13-19, and translated by him, pp. 40-47. (h) Cylinder Inscription, published
I R. 36, and by Lyon, op. cit., plates 1-12, and translated by
him, pp. 30-39.

180 "In the ninth year
of Hoshea
the king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away into Assyria"
(2 Kings xvii, 6). It is to be noted that in verses 4 and 5 the same
phrase, "king of Assyria," is used, applying there to Shalmaneser IV,
and no hint is given that a change of rulers had taken place. Comp.
Guthe, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, p. 193.

184 Annals, lines
18-23. These
lines are badly broken, and it is difficult to make much of them. In
the Cylinder inscription (line 17, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii,
pp. 40, 41, Sargon thus speaks of himself: "The brave hero who met
Khumbanigash of Elam at Durilu and accomplished his defeat." On the
other hand, the Babylonian Chronicle (col. i, lines 33, 34, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, pp. 276, 277) asserts that Khumbanigash was victorious
over Sargon.

207 Annals, lines
83-89; General
Inscription, lines 64-67 (Winckler, op. cit., pp. 18, 19; Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii,pp. 60, 61). A comparison of these two passages
shows a discrepancy in the figures, the former giving the number of
Median princes at twenty-two, the latter thirty-four.

220 The variation
Yaman,
Yatnani, is the same as that found in the name of the island of Cyprus
and the Cypriotes. It is therefore natural to suppose that Yaman here
is a race, rather than a personal, name, the leader being a Greek
mercenary from Cyprus (so Winckler, Die Keilschrifttexte Sargon's I,
xxx, note 2). Winckler has, however, since come to think that this man
was an Arab, a man from Yemen (Musri Meluhha, Ma'in, p. 26,
note 1). The former view is preferable.

240 The principal
authorities
for the reign of Sennacberib are: (a) The Taylor Prism (usually called
Cylinder), published I R. i, 37-42, and also Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttexte,
pp. 17-21. It has been translated into German by Horning, Das
Sechsseitige Prisma des Sanherib in transscribirtem Grundtext and
Uebersetzung, and by Bezold, Keilinschrift. Bibl., ii, pp.
80, ff., and into English by Rogers, Records of the Past, New
Series, vi, pp. 83-101. (b) The Bellino Cylinder, British Museum, K.
1680, a kind of duplicate of the former, published by Layard, Inscriptions
in the Cuneiform Character, plates 63, 64. Portions of it are
translated into German by Bezold (see above) and into English by Fox
Talbot, Records of the Past, First Series, i, pp. 23-32. (c)
The Bavian Stele, published III R. 14, translated into French by
Pognon, L'Inscription de Bavian, Texte, traduction et commentaire
philologique, Paris, 1879-80, and into English by Pinches, Records
of the Past, First Series, ix, pp. 21-28. (d) The Neby Yunus
Inscription, published I R. 43, and partially translated bY Bezold, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, pp. 118, 119.

242 See Pinches, "The
Babylonian
Kings of the Second Period," Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology, vi, col.iv, line 13.

243 2 Kings xx, 12-19.
There has
been some doubt as to the time when this embassy was sent. It has been
assigned to the first reign of Merodach-baladan under Sargon (so
Lenormant, pommel, Geschichte, p. 704; Winckler, Die
Keilschrifttexte Sargon's, i, 1). xxxi, note 2), and also to his
second reign (so Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old
Testament, ii, 28, 29; E. Meyer, Geschichte des Alterthums,
i, p. 466; Winckler, Geschichte, p. 129; Miirdter-Delitzsch, Geschichte,
2d ed., p. 197; Maspero, The Passing of the Empires, p.
276. The latter view seems to me to fit the Assyrian situation better.

253 Our authorities for
Sennacherib's campaign in the west are the following: 1. Assyrian. (a)
I R. 7, No. viii, I. Rogers, Records of the Past, New Series,
vi, p. 83. Sennachcrib's bas-relief, representing his victory at
Lachish. (b) The Taylor Prism, col. ii, line 34-col. iii, line 41.
Rogers, op. cit., pp. 88-91. 2. Hebrew. (a) 2 Kings xviii,
13-xix, 37. (b) Isa. xxxvi, 1-xxxvii, 37. The passage in Isaiah is the
same as that in Kings, with the single great exception that it does not
contain 2 Kings xviii, 1416-a positive proof that this passage is not
original in its present setting. Stade has shown (Zeitschrift fur
die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1886, pp. 172, ff.) that it
consists of three narratives, the first of which is 2 Kings xviii, 13,
17-37, xix, 1-9a; the second, 2 Kings xviii, 14-16; and the third, 2
Kings xix, 9b-37. (See also Benzinger and Kittel on the passage.) This
analysis is now generally accepted.

264 Taylor Prism, col.
iii, line
17. These inhabitants were not carried away into captivity. They were
marched out (ushesa) from their cities and compelled to give
allegiance to Assyria. The usual Assyrian expression (ashlul) for
taking away into captivity is not used here. See Meyer, Die
Entstehung des Judenthums, Halle, 1896, pp. 108, 109.

266 2 Kings xviii, 14.
Brandis (Munzwesen,
p. 98) has attempted to show that the three hundred Hebrew
talents=eight hundred Assyrian, and this is now generally accepted.

267 The surrender of
Padi to the
Assyrians is mentioned in Sennacherib's Annals (Taylor Prism, iii,
8-10) before the treaty with Hezekiah. The reason for this is that
Sennacherib is there telling of the punishment of Ekron, and goes on to
show how it was to be governed in the future. The narrative does not
follow strict chronological order, but this episode is rounded out and
then the chronological scheme is again resumed. This is the usual form
in Assyrian narrative. See Winckler, Alitestamentliche
Untersuchungen, p. 31.

269 The statement of
Sennacherib's Annals (col. iii, lines 21, 22) does not properly bear
the construction that he had laid siege to the city in a formal manner.
His phrase is: "Intrenchments I fortified against him, (and) whosoever
came out of the gates of the city I turned back." This is not the
expression used elsewhere for a real investment of the city. It was a
blockade, and the implication is that the forces of the Rabshakeh were
encamped around the city, but at a distance, which also is supported by
the place at which negotiations were carried on, for this must have
been between the two forces and not within the Assyrian lines. Comp. 2
Kings xix, 32: "Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning the king of
Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there,
neither shall he come before it with shield, nor cast a mount against
it" See on the passage Kittel, Handkommentar, p. 289.

280 Winckler (Alttestamentlichen
Untersuchungen, pp. 27, ff.) has attempted to show that the
narrative in 2 Kings xviii, 13-xix. 37, relates not to one but to two
campaigns of Sennacherib. According to this view Sennacherib invaded
Palestine in 701, and again, after the year 691, when making an
expedition against Arabia, he assailed Palestine and Egypt. The view,
attractive for several reasons, has convinced Benzinger (Die Bucher
der Konige, pp. 177, ff.), Guthe (Geschichte des Volkes
Israel, p. 204), and Hommel (Dictionary of the Bible, ed.
Hastings, i, p. 188, col. 2). It is, on the other hand, not accepted by
Kittel (Die Richer der Konige, p. 291), Maspero (The
Passing of the Empires, p.293), McCurdy (History,
Prophecy, and the Monuments, ii, pp. 300, ff., 428-431), and
Meinhold (Die Jesajaerzahlungen and Jesaja and seine
Zeit). The ob. jections to Winckler's rearrangement into two
campaigns are, briefly, these 1. There is no mention anywhere of a
second attack on Jerusalem by Sennacherib. 2. The passage 2 Kings xix,
7, has to be rejected without any other reason than to make the passage
fit the theory. 3. It involves a complete overturning of the Hebrew
traditions, as represented in the book of Rings, and supported by the
prophetic passages in the book of Isaiah. See further a most incisive
and convincing criticism of this theory of Winckler by Cheyne, Introduction
to the Book of Isaiah, pp.234, 235.

281 Lachish is the
modern
Tel-el-Hesy, and Libnah must be sought in the immediate neighborhood.
According to Eusebius it belonged at a later time to the district of
Eleutheropolis (modern Beit Jibrin).

299 2 Kings xix, 36,
37;
Babylonian Chronicle, iii, 34, where only one son is mentioned
as the assassin.

300 The chief
authorities for
the reign of Esarhaddon are the following: (a) The Cylinders A, B,
C, published I R. 45-47, and III R. 15, 16, and Abel-Winckler, Keilschrifttexte,
25, 26, translated into English by R. F. Harper, Cylinder A of the
Esarhaddon Inscriptions, transliterated and translated, with Textual
Notes, from the Original Copy in the British Museum, republished from Hebraica,
1887, 1888; and into German by Ludwig Abel and Hugo Winckler, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, pp. 124-151. (b) The Black Stone, published I
R. 49, 50, and translated into German by Winckler, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, pp. 120-125. (c) The Stele of Zenjirli, published
by von Luschan, Ausyrabungen in Sendschirli, i, pp. 11-29 and
plates i-iv, and translated by Schrader, ibid., pp. 29-43. (d) Prayers
to the Sun God, published and translated into German by J. A.
Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete an den Sonnen Gott, i, ii, pp.
72-264. The chief inscriptions are transliterated and translated in
Budge, The History of Esarhaddon, London, 1880.

314 Sennacherib had
certainly
planned to invade Egypt. See above, pp. 197, 198, and compare, "I have
digged and drunk water, and with the sole of my feet will I dry up all
the rivers of Egypt" (Isa. xxxvii, 2G).

315 Esarhaddon had
previously
consulted the oracle of the sun god and had received a favorable
answer. See Knudtzon, Assyrische Gebete u. sw., ii, p. 177.

318 Maspero (Passing
of the
Empires, p. 358) makes her simply the wife of Hazael, and says
nothing of the expression in Cylinder A and C, iii, 14, in which
dominion over the country is expressly attributed to her.

333 It is quite
impossible to
give any useful survey of the inscriptions of this reign. The most
important is the splendidly preserved Bassani Prism, containing 1,803
lines of writing on ten sides, published V R. 1-10 (with numerous
variants from other texts). It is translated into German by P. Jensen, Kedinschrift.
Bibl., ii, 152-237. In addition to the translation of this
particular text Jensen has also translated certain parallel and
supplemental passages from other inscriptions (ibid., pp.
236-269), in which most of the matter needed for historical purposes is
contained. For more complete lists of the inscriptions belonging to the
reign the following may be consulted: Bezold, Kurzgefasster
Ueberblick caber die Babylonisch-Assyrische Literatur, pp.
108-121; George Smith, History of Assurbanipal, London, 1871;
Samuel Alden Smith, Die Keilsehrifttexte Asurbantpal's Konigs von
Assyrien (678-626 v. chr.) nach dem selbst in London
copierten Grundtext, mit Transeription, Uebersetzwig, Kommentar rind
vollstandigen Glossar. Leipzig, 1887-89. There are discussions of
some important questions concerning the Asshurbanapal texts in
Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, especially i, pp.
244-253, 474-483. In the narrative below references are given to other
inscriptions and to detailed investigations concerning them.

334 The Babylonian
Chronicle
ends at the very beginning of Asshurbanapal's reign, with a notice of
the campaign in Kirbit,mentioned below.

347 Gagi has been often
identified with Gog, Ezek. xxxviii, 2; for example, by Schrader Keilinschriften
and Geschichtsforschung, p. 159, note, and Delitzsch, Paradies,
p. 247, but this is hardly probable. An identification of Gog with
Gyges, king of Lydia, is more likely. See E. Meyer, Geschichte des
Alterthums, i, p. 558; Sayce, sub voce, Dictionary of the
Bible, ed. Hastings, ii, p. 224.

373 The name Manda in
the
Babylonian texts applies to the same peoples that are called Sakae or
Scythians by the Greeks. See Delattre, Le Peuple et l'Empire des
Medes, p. 190; Winckler, Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen
Gesehichte, pp. 112, 124, 125.

378 Xenophon (Anabasis,
iii, iv, 1) in passing between Larissa and Mespila went close by the
ruins.

379 For the later
history of the
site see Lincke, "Continuance of the Names of Assyria and Nineveh after
607-606 B. C.," in the Memoirs of the IX Oriental Congress at
London, 1891, and Assyria und Nineveh in Geschichte and Sage der
Mittelmeervolker (nach 607-606), 1894.

380 I It had come to be
established as almost a usual rule for the Assyrian king who reigned in
Babylon to have another name than that used in Assyria, as witness
Tiglathpileser III and Shalmaneser IV. George Smith first suggested (History
of Assurbanipal, pp. 323, 324) that Kandalanu and Asshurbanapal
were the same person, and Schrader ("Kineladan and Asurbanipal" in Zeitschrift
fur Seilschriftforschung, i, pp. 222-232) attempted to demonstrate
it. Oppert was not convinced by the argument ("La Vraie Personalite et
les dates du roi Chinaladan," Revue d'Assyriologie, i, pp.
1-11), and Sayce agrees with him. On the other hand, Assyriologists
generally accept the identity of Asshurbanapal and Kandalanu (Tiele, Bab.
assyr. Gesch., pp. 412-414; Winckler, Geschichte, pp. 135,
282, 289; King, art. "Babylonia" in Encyclopcedia Biblica, i,
col. 451). Hommel (art. "Assyria" in Hastings's Bible Dictionary,
i, p. 189) thinks that the evidence is indecisive, and leaves the
question open.

381 There has been
found at
Nippur a tablet dated in the fourth year of Asshuretililani (see
Hilprecht, "Keilinschriftliche Funde in Niffer," Zeitschrift fur
Assyriologie, iv, p. 167), which shows that he was acknowledged as
king of Babylonia in Nippur as late as 621 B. C.

382 The relationship of
Sin-shar-ishkun to Asshuretililani is made clear in a tablet published
by Scheil ("Sin-shar-ishkun, fils d'Asshurbanipal," Zeitschrift fur
Assyriologie, xi, pp. 47, ff.). A contract tablet from Uruk dated
in the seventh year of Sin-shar-ishkun (King, "Sin-shar-ishkun and His
Rule in Babylonia," Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, ix,pp.
396-400) would seem to show that his rule was officially recognized in
Uruk at about 612 B. C. Tablets also exist (Evetts, Inscriptions of
the Reigns of Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, and Laborosoarchod, pp.
90, 91; Winckler, Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, 18
May, 1889, col. 636, footnote) dated at Sippara in the second year of
Sin-shar-ishkun.

383 His inscriptions,
dealing
almost exclusively with building operations, give unsatisfactory views
of the political and military history. The chief texts are the
following: (a) The Merodach-Temple Inscription, published and
translated by Strassmaier, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, iv,
106, ff., and also translated by Winckler, Keilinschrift. Bibl.,
iii, part 2, pp. 2-7. (b) The Sippar-Canal Inscription, published
by Winckler, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, 11, 69, ff., and
translated by him in Keilinschrift. Bibl., iii, part 2, pp.
6-9. (c) The Belit-Temple Inscription, published by Winckler, Zeitschrift
fir Assyriologie, ii, 145, 172, and translated by him, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., iii, part 2, pp. 8, 9.

388 The chronicler (2
Chron.
xxxv, 20-22) has preserved an interesting reminiscence of Necho's
intercourse with Josiah: Necho "sent ambassadors to him [Josiah],
saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not
against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war; and
God bath commanded me to make baste: forbear thee from meddling with
God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not."

389 2 Kings xxiii, 29.
Herodotus, ii, clix, refers to a defeat of the Syrians at Magdolus,
undoubtedly the same event. But see Benzinger and Kittel.

396 Jer. xxvii, 1-3.
This
chapter begins in the Massoretic text, "In the beginning of the reign
of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah." It is, however, clear from verses 2,
12, and 20 that the text is corrupt. We must either read Zedekiah
instead of Jehoiakim, or, as is much better, omit the verse altogether,
as the LXX have done. See Giesebrecht on the passage.

397 The character of
this blind
faith is shown in Jeremiah's taunt uttered afterward: "where now are
your prophets which prophesied unto you, saying, The kinä of
Babylon shall not come against you, nor against this land?" Jer.
xxxvii, 19.

410 Our modern
judgments are not
based on the same premises as the ancient. The Assyrians would
undoubtedly have put Zedekiah to death after horrible torture or by
mutilation. It is possible that we ought to consider this blinding to
be merciful punishment, when we remember that even modern orientals do
not estimate vision so highly as occidentals. Egyptian fellahin blinded
themselves to avoid conscription under Mohammed Ali.

412 The Babylonians did
not even
share in the destruction of the hated city of Nineveh, which had so
sorely punished Babylon itself in earlier days.

413 It is interesting
to
speculate upon the number of the Judeeans who were exiled in all the
invasions of Nebuchadrezzar. The latest computation is by Gutbe (Geschichte
des Volkes Israel, pp. 236, 237), who reckons the total number at
thirty-six thousand to forty-eight thousand, which he counts as a
quarter or an eighth of the total population.

414 "But Nebuzaradan
the captain
of the guard left of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and
husbandmen." Jer. lii, 16.

420 The discoveries of
the
expedition of the University of Pennsylvania at Nippur have shown how
largely Jews entered into the business life of Babylonia. See The
Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, edited by
H. V. Hilprecht, vol. ix, and compare the review by Jensen, Zeitschrift
fur Assyriologie, xiii, pp. 329-336.

422 It is not intended
to assert
that the Babylonians had no ships, but simply that they were not seamen.
Herodotus (i, 194) and Sennacherib (Taylor Cylinder, col. iii,
lines 55, 56, Records of the Past, New Series, vi, p. 92)
witness to their possession and use of ships. The English versions of
Isa. xliii, 14, "the Chaldeans, whose cry is in the ships" (A. V.), and
"the Chaldeans, in the ships of their rejoicing" (R. V.), give a
totally false impression, if they seem to make the Chaldeans a
seafaring folk, for so the passage is often quoted. The text is quite
likely corrupt. See Cheyne and especially Marti (Das Ruch Jesaija,
p. 297) on the passage.

424 Comp. Tiele, Geschichte,
ii, p. 433, n. In a contract tablet dated in Tyre "month Tammuz, day
22d, year 40th Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon," there is evidence of
Babylonian supremacy over Tyre. See Records of the Past, New
Series, iv, pp. 99-100, and Sayce in Expository Times, June,
1899, p. 430. Nothing can be made out of Eusebius, Chron., i,
51; Justin, xviii, 3; and Strabo, xv, 1, 6.

430 Herodotus (i,
clxxviii,
clxxix) has given a most elaborate description of these defenses. As to
the value of his testimony see above, vol. i, pp. 263, 264. For
Nebuchadrezzar's own account see East India House Inscription, col. iv,
66-73; v, 1-65; vi, 1-55. Comp. Appendix C.

438 Josephus has
reported a
similar tradition in these words: "Nebuchadrezzar falling into a state
of weakness, altered his (manner of) life when he had reigned
forty-three years; whereupon his son, Evil-merodach, obtained the
kingdom" (Apion, i, 20). Eusebius also has a curious story of
Nebuchadrezzar's end: "On a certain occasion the king went up to the
roof of his palace, and, after prophesying of the coming of the Persian
Cyrus and his conquest of Babylon, suddenly disappeared" (Proep.,
ix, 41, Chron., i, 59). See Schrader, "Die Sage vom wahnsinn
Nebukadnezars," Jahrb. fur Prot. Theologie, vii, pp. 629, ff.,
and comp. Prince, Commentary on the Book of Daniel, pp. 32-35.

442 Tiele (Geschichte,
ii, pp. 457, 464) argues that the restoration of Jehoiachin does not
fit the character of Evil-merodach nor the other chronological
indications, and therefore proposes to ascribe it to Neriglissor. The
point is, however, not well taken.

445 The Ripley
Cylinder,
published by Budge, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology, x, part 3 (translated by Bezold, Keilinschrift.
Bibl., ii, part 2, 77, ff.).

446 So, for example, "O
Marduk,
great lord, lord of the gods, glorious, light of the gods, I pray thee;
may I, according to thy exalted unchangeable command, enjoy the glory
of the house which I have built, may I attain unto old age in it"
(Cambridge Cylinder, col. ii, lines 31-34).

451 Pinches (Transactions
of
the Society of Biblical Archaeology, vii, 171) has most improbably
sought to connect the place with a certain Tu-ma. See further Hagen, Beitrage
zur Assyriologie, ii, p. 236, footnote.

452 So, for example:
"From sin
against thy exalted godhead guard me, and grant me, as a gift, life for
many days, and in the heart of Belshazzar, my firstborn son, the
offspring of my body, establish reverence for thy great godhead. May he
not incline to sin, but enjoy the fullness of life" (small inscription
of Ur, col. ii, lines 20-31).

464 According to a
story
preserved by Herodotus (i, lxxxv-lxxxvii), Crcesus, seeing the end of
his fortunes near, prepared a great funeral pyre and assembled upon it
with himself, also his family, his nobles, and his choicest
possessions; when the fire was started Zeus put out the fire and Apollo
bore the aged king with his daughters away into the Hyperborean
country. On the other hand, we are told that Crcesus lived on as the
friend of Cyrus and accepted from him the fief of Barene in Media
(Ktesias, Frag. 29, 4, in Muller-Didot, Ctesioe Cnidii Fragmenta, p.
46).

466 This was the eighth
year of
Nabonidus, and on his Chronicle tablet nothing is said at all of this
year, but a blank space of about two lines is left. See Hagen, op.
cit., p. 218.

467 Col. ii, line 16.
Hagen says
that there were remains of two signs, and the first seemed to
be su. Was not the second probably ri?--the name
Assyria. An allusion to this movement is preserved in Xenophon, Anabasis,
iii, 4, 7-12.

468 The "king" of the
country
was killed, but his name is not given. See the text of Hagen, col. ii,
line 17.

472 That so little
military
preparation was made by Belshazzar or others in authority is partially
to be explained by the fact that Cyrus was long regarded as an ally of
Nabonidus (see the Nabonidus Chronicle, i, 28-33). It was the Lydian
victory that opened Chaldean eyes to the true situation.

477 Assyria as used in this passage manifestly is extended
so as to include all Babylonia. See above, vol. i, p. 269.

478 This outer wall
corresponds
to Nimitti-Bel in the descriptions of Nebuchadrezzar, and Herodotus
could not have seen it, for it had been destroyed by Darius.

479 Four hundred and
eighty
stadia would be fifty-five and one quarter miles, which is impossible.
The modern ruins, so far as can be ascertained, extend from north to
south a distance of about five miles only.

480 The proportion of
width to
height is impossible. The interior of these walls was composed of
sun-dried bricks, the outside was made of burnt bricks. Such a wall
could not be raised to so great a height (about one hundred and five
meters) on a base so narrow (about twenty-six meters); long before it
could be reached the whole mass would collapse. The necessary
proportions would be about a width of one third to two thirds of the
height. See A. Billerbeck, Der Festungsbau im Alten Orient, Leipzig,
1900, p. 6.

487 For references to text and translations see above, p.
342, note 1. The translation here given owes much to Ball's excellent
English version, but differs from it in adhering a little more closely
to the original in some places, and in the total omission of a few
phrases (indicated by dotted lines) the meaning of which is either
unknown or extremely doubtful.